B. Nageshwar Rao, v. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4114 of 2021

1. B. Nageshwar Rao, S/o Late B.S. Rao, Aged About 41 Years Working As Technician (Distn), (Suspended) At CSPDCL Zone Ambikapur, 87/03 Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, District - Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through General Manager, Qtr. No. C/8, First Floor, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Executive Director (RJN-R), CSPDCL, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. The Executive Engineer CSPDCL, Ghumka District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Engineer (AR), CSPDCL Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Chief Engineer (RJN R) CSPDCL Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

6. The Chief Engineer (RJN R) CSPDCL Janakpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11.08.2021 1.

After arguing for sometime, the counsel for the petitioner confines his claim to the subsistence allowance that he was entitled for which has not been paid.

2.

Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has, this court is of the opinion that the said grievance is one which can be looked into by the authorities under the respondents.

3.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondents No.2 to 5 claiming for unpaid subsistence allowance. Upon the petitioner making such a representation, the respondents No.2 to 5 shall consider the same on its own merits and take appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of representation.

-24.

As regards issuance of relieving letter from the respondent No.4 enabling the petitioner to join at Janakpur, District Manendragarh, this court is of the opinion that there should not be any such requirement considering the fact that the petitioner has been posted upon revocation of the suspension order and since it is a revocation of the suspension order with change of posting, there need not be an order of relieving to be issued from the office where the petitioner was attached during suspension. 5.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder