Budhsen Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 10379 of 2019 • Budhsen Singh S/o Late Shri Ramrudra Singh Aged About 61 Years Assistant Revenue Inspector, Office Of The Nagar Palik Nigam Zone No. 02, Tifra Bilaspur R/o Village Tifra Police Station Civil Line, Bilasur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. Employees Welfare Branch, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh Urban Administraion And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Principal Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Managing Director C. I. D. C. / Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Shastri Chowk Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Commissioner Nagar Palik Nigam Zone No. 02, Tifra Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondents-State :
Shri Kapil Maini, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/12/2019
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., however after creation of the State of
Chhattisgarh a separate Road Transport Corporation has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, their services were placed in the control of respondent/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short 'C.I.D.C.'). He would further submit that the State Government has issued number of circulars deciding to absorb services of the employees working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C in various Corporation/Mandals in the State of Chhattisgarh and in furtherance of the said policy several employees have already been absorbed.
2. Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioners would confine their prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation. He is restricting their prayer in view of the order passed by this Court in the matters of O.P. Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1, Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others2, Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others 4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others6.
3. Learned State counsel do not oppose the fact that similar issue has been decided in WPS No. 3149 of 2015.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioners submit fresh representation before the competent authority of the respondents within a period of four weeks, the said authority WP (S) No.5521/2010 WP (S) No.473/2013 WP (S) No.476/2013 WP (S) No.1220/2013 WP (S) No.1458/2013 WP (S) No.2128/2013
shall consider and decide petitioners' representation in an objective manner keeping in view the circular issued by the State Government from time to time, as also the orders of absorption passed with respect to the similarly placed employees, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.
6. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Goutam Bhaduri Jyoti