Ravi Sharma v. Chhattisgarh Railway Corporation Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5694 OF 2019 Ravi Sharma S/o Bharat Lal Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o C-4, Green Garden Colony, Near 36 City Mall, Mangla, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Railway Corporation Limited A Joint Venture of Ministry of Railways and Government of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Railway Corporation Limited, First Floor, C.S.I.D.C. Commercial Complex, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipura Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chairman Chhattisgarh Railway Corporation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Railway Corporation Limited, Raipur, First Floor, C.S.I.D.C. Commercial Complex, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipura Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Principal Executive Director (SPV) Railway Board, Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.

5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry (As A Nominee Of The Government Of Chhattisgarh), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents 1&3 :

Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05.08.2019 1.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby the contractual appointment of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent No.3.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that the petitioner has already approached the respondent No.2 by way of

representation dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P/4) which has not been decided till date. According to the petitioner, he has been made a victim/scapegoat in the instant case and that except for the petitioner no other persons have been terminated though many were issued with identical show cause notice.

3.

Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has already moved a representation before the respondent No.2 and which is pending consideration, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4.

It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No.2 so far as order passed by this court is concerned. 5.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder