Gend Singh Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 10693 of 2019

1. Gend Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Miththu Singh Rajput Aged About 56 Years Sahayak Rajaswa Nirikshak Karyalay Nagar Palika Parishad Mungeli Nivasi- Mungeli, Thana Mungeli, Jila Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

2. Suresh Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Purushottam Prasad Dubey Aged About 56 Years Sahayak Rajaswa Nirikshak Karyalay Nagar Palika Parishad Mungeli Nivasi- Mungeli, Thana Mungeli, Jila Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Sachiv, Samanya Prashan Vibhag Shasakiya Karmachari Kalyan Shakha Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Sachiv Chhattisgarh Shasan Nagariy Prashasan Evam Vikas Vibhag Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Pramukh Sachiv Chhattisgarh Shasan Parivahan Vibhag Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Sanchalak Sanchalanalay Nagariy Prashasan Evam Vikas Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, Jila Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Prabandh Sanchalak C.I.D.C./ Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Shastri Chowk Raipur, Jila Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. Mukhya Nagar Palika Adhikari Nagar Palika Parishad Mungeli, Jila Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Soumya Rai, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 17/12/2019

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 pending before the said authority. 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 & others3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others6.

3. 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 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 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

placed employees, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation.

4. 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.

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge yasmin