← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1092/2017disposed off

Pragya Kadam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-05-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1092 of 2017 • Pragya Kadam D/o Shri Gopal Rao Kadam, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No.7, Behind House of Doctor Khetrapal, Tilak Nagar, Bilapsur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Secretary, Food and Civil Supples, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through The Chairman, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hitwad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri R. S. Baghel, Advocate on behalf of Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA For Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 15/05/2017

1.

Learned counsel for the parties would not dispute that the order of termination under assail in this petition was subject matter in several writ petitions, which has been decided in favour of similarly placed employees on 09.11.2016 in Writ Appeal No.433/2016 (Hakam Singh Choudhary and others vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others) and other connected matters and thereafter SLP has also been dismissed against the said order of the Devision Bench. 2.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is decided finally in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.433/2016 and other connected matters. The petitioner would be entitled for the same benefit after verification of necessary facts.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala