Akhilesh Mishra v. Chhattisgarh Infrasructure Development Corporation

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4174 OF 2018 1.

Akhilesh Mishra, S/o Late Shri Brijbhan Prasad Mishra, aged about 52 years, Helper, Korba Depot, R/o I.T.I. Sakti, Nandeli, P.S. & P.O. Sakti, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.) 2.

Smt. Sushma Singh, W/o Late Shri Nandlal Singh, aged about 58 years, Ambikapur Depot, R/o Company Bazar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Petitioners ...

versus 1.

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Parivahan Vibhag), through its Managing Director, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.) Respondents ...

For Petitioners :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27/06/2018 1.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that an identical issue came up before a coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.11.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2017 which has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 and it was further directed that respondent No.2 shall on receipt of the representation take a prompt decision. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners thus submits that the present writ petition also may be disposed of in similar terms as the grievance raised by the present Petitioners is identical. 2.

Given the facts and circumstances, this Court feels the prayer made by the Petitioners to be fair and reasonable.

3.

Accordingly, the present writ petition also is disposed of in similar terms as has been passed in the W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2017 vide order dated 15.11.2017. The Petitioners are at liberty to move a representation before Respondent No.2 before whom the claims of the previous set of petitions were under process. 4.

On submission of the representation by the Petitioners, the Respondents shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months verify the case of the Petitioners and if the case of the Petitioners is found to be similar to the previous set of petitions or the case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2017, their claim shall also be processed along with the similarly placed persons whose writ

petitions have already been decided vide orders dated 4.7.2011 and 16.12.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 6510 of 2009 and W.A. No. 419 of 2011. 5.

The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the above observation.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge