Jayantrao Gaikwad, v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2865 of 2021 Jayantrao Gaikwad S/o Shri Rajeshwar Rao Gaikwad, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Marathapara Dhamtari Road, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, R.D.A. Building Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

6. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Second Floor, Old Police Head Quarter Premises, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

7. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh

8. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bastar, District Bastar - Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

For Petitioner :

Mr. Palas Tiwari, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate For Respondent no.5 :

Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 24.06.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working in erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., however, after creation of the State of Chhattisgarh a separate Road Transport Corporation has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, his services were placed in the control of respondent/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (in short "C.I.D.C."). He would further submit that the State Government has issued number of circulars deciding to absorb services of the employees working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C. in various Corporation/Mandals in the State of Chhattisgarh and in furtherance of the said policy several employees have already been absorbed and the case of the petitioner was also recommended, however, no decision has yet been taken and the petitioner is losing seniority, pay scale etc.

2. Learned counsel would submit that for the present he would confine his prayer to a direction to the respondent/Corporation to take a decision on the representation pending before the respondents particularly the respondent no.4. He is restricting his prayer in view of the similarly placed employees namely Mr. O. P. Singh being granted benefit of absorption pursuant to direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 5521/2010.

3. Considering the limited relief claimed at this stage, it is directed that in

the event petitioner submits fresh representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks from today, the said authority shall consider and decide his representation in an objective manner keeping in view the circular issued by the State Government from time to time and orders of absorption passed with respect to similarly placed employees, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of representation.

4. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai