Ugrasen Shukla v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Parivahan Prabhag)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7571 of 2018

1. Ugrasen Shukla S/o Late Shri R. P. Shukla, Aged About 64 Years Conductor Durg, Depot , Bilaspur Depot, Raigarh Depot , r/o Infront of Vivekananda Stadium, Near Durga Mandir, Kota, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Khadak Bahdur Singh S/o Late Shri Bhim Singh Aged About 55 Years Driver, Raipur Depot -I R/o Mahal Para, Saraipali Police Station and Post Office Saraipali , District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

3. Chandra Shekhar Singh Sengar S/o Late Shri Rudra Sharan Singh Sengar Aged About 72 Years Transport Supervisor -I Jagdalpur Depot R/o Village Baduli Pratap, Post Office Mishragava, District : Rewa, Madhya Pradesh

4. Samarjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Baldev Singh Aged About 68 Years Store Keeper -II Raipur Depot -II R/o Village Bahuli Police Station Naigarhi, District : Rewa, Madhya Pradesh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Parivahan Prabhag) Through Its Managing Director Old PHQ Bhawan 2nd Floor Civil Line Police Station Civil Line, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director Head Office Habibganj Bhopal, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/CIDC :

Shri Soumaya Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 19.11.2018 1.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that an identical issue came up before the Coordinate Bench on 15.11.2017 and the same has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation

to the respondent No.2 and it was further directed that respondent No.2 shall on receipt the representation take a prompt decision. 2.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that present writ petition also may be disposed of in similar terms as the grievance raised by the petitioners is identical.

3.

Given the facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the prayer made by the petitioners to be fair and reasonable. 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. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to move a representation before the respondent No.2, before whom the claim 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 shall verify and if the case of the petitioners are similarly to the previous set of petitions or the petitioners in the case of 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 04.07.2011 and 16.12.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 6510 of 2009 and W.A. No. 419 of 2011.

5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of at the motion stage. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge vatti