Smt. Hemin Bai Sahu v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.1195 of 2016 Smt. Hemin Bai Sahu W/o Late Narad Ram, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Janjgiri (BMY), P.S. Bhilai- 3, Post Office Janjgiri, Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. Through The Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Public Information Officer Cum Assistant Engineer, Office Of Executive Engineer (Communication), Division Chhattisgarh State Electricity Transmission Ltd. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Executive Engineer (Communication), Circle Jagdalpur, State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11/01/2018 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that issue raised in this writ petition is covered by order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.360 of 2015 (Raja Ram Kosle Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd & Ors.) and other connected matters in which, this Court has observed as under in paragraphs 9 & 10:- "9. For the foregoing, the present batch of writ petitions is disposed of in the following manner:- (i) The petitioners shall submit fresh representations

within a period of one month, along with copies of the earlier applications filed by each of them and supporting documents before the Manager, HRD, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Dangania, District Raipur.

(ii) On such representations being filed, the respondents shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the policy dated 30.01.1997.

(iii) It is made clear that while deciding the representations, the respondents would be at liberty to take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.588/2013.

10. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents shall decide the representations in accordance with law the policy dated 30.01.1997 and the principles governing grant of compassionate appointment laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court and nothing contained in this order shall be construed as any opinion on merits in favour of the petitioners."

(2) Accepting the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in similar terms of Raja Ram Kosle (supra) passed in Writ Petition (S) No.360 of 2015 and other connected matters.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-