CGUM" FEE$ EXEMPTED BY NOTiFiCATION NO. 9WD-2870/XXI- B/C.G./05 AS SPECIFIED IN SmEDULE mnOFTHEcounT FEESAcna‘zo.“ @mga E? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2010 APPLICANTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, (RESPONDENTS Through the Secretary, N0. 1 TO 3) Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.) 2. The Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.) The Secretary, Department of Transport, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 . A.K. Dwivedi, (PETITIONER) S/o Late R.L. Dwivedi, Aged about 58 years, R/o Quarter No. W/28, Yadunandan Nagar (Tifra), Bilaspur (CG.) (RESPONDENT NO. 4) 2. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, C.I.D.C., Shastri Chowk, Raipur (CG.) APPLICATION/'7 FOR REVIEWIRECALL OF W‘l’ THE ORDER DATED 06(08l2010 PASSED IN W.P. [S1 N0. 424512010 BEARING PARTIES "A.K. DWNEDI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND 3 OTHERS’n mm (Wu) WWW WW§WW %3if?mm SB : Hon’ble 8hr! Manindra Mohan sulmtava J. 27.8.2010 Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawy 3r for the Stat] appiicants. Shii S.P. Kale 8t. Shri 'Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the‘ respondent N01, on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for the pam'es, this review petition is heard finany. Leaxned- counsel for the dated 6.8.20 10 passed by this been mentioned that the services of the employees of erstwhik Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Iporation (M.P.S.R.’I‘.C), who were working on deputation in diEe has been recorded that absor No.1, Whereas, those rules Department, but by the Transport Department of the State * Government. xw Learned counsel for the re pondent submits that this Court has only ditected consideration of th case of absorption according to the existing policy. \ mmtLevlauL Nv‘léq/ZBO limnts submits thm w the order rt in W.P. (S) No.4245/2010, it has t Corporations and Departments in ' .7 the State, were to be absorbed, hereas in memo dated 10.12.2007, there is no mentioning of ah rption of employees of erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C. into any departm t of State Government. The other submission of learned counsel fo the applicants is that in the order‘ it rules were named by respondent e been framed not by the Law p p u v Taking into consitlemtion the submissions made by leaned counsel for the parties, it is clarifLcd that this Court has not issued any dimction for absorption in a p 'cular department or institution It is ' ‘ also owed that the policy merred to in the onicr, is the policy fmmed by mspond’éht No.3. T order passed earlier 01176.8.2010, therefore, shall be understood and mad in View of the clariEcation given as above. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is hnaliy disposed OE ’ " Sdl Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ‘ mm W200 mmqatfgaiw) mwm 2-2, WW Wm éa‘a‘mm