Lakhanlal Banothe v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2094 of 2015 • Lakhanlal Banothe son of late Shri Parasram Banothe, aged about 52 years, working as Assistant Revenue Inspector,, Nagar Panchayat Devkar, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)
3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Devkar, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents/State :
Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 18/06/2015
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 was placed in the control of respondent/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for 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 the decision has not yet been taken and the petitioner is losing seniority, pay scale etc.
2. Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioner would confine his prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the representation pending before the said authority. He is restricting his prayer in view of the order passed by this Court in the matters of O.P. Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1, Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others2, Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others6.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioner submits fresh representation before respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks, the said authority shall consider and decide petitioner's representation in an objective manner keeping in view the circular issued by the State Government from time to time, as also the orders of absorption passed with respect to the similarly placed employees, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representations.
WP (S) No.5521/2010 WP (S) No.473/2013 WP (S) No.476/2013 WP (S) No.1220/2013 WP (S) No.1458/2013 WP (S) No.2128/2013
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. JUDGE ashu