IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHI-IATTISGARH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VW w.P. N0. 44%3 (2004 /Omprakash ingh S/ 0. Nirbhay Singh, S Aged about 36 years, R/o. In front of Alka Bauripara, 1$Q Ambikapur, Industries, Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Distt. Energy Depth, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattjsgarh Electricity Board, Through: its Secretary, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Addih'onal Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Trikon Chowk, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The Secretary, Department of Cooperative Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Danganiya, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ® QM m‘ / XI . ... .. X l—HC»78 co? $4Logw4£¢¢m §q11$ W 200 4‘ Warm wav‘ érznWNW mmW anéeT WW#WW aiwmw 4—5-2005 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, coun sei for The pefitioners. and 4. Mr. Akhil Agmwal, Panei Mr. Vinod Dash mukh, cou Heard. W.P.No.4408/2004 file: No.4409/2004 filed by Ompr'a absorpfion and reguiarizaTion o? Eiecwich‘y Board. Therefore, order‘ The case of me pamo working as Junior Engineer in 1+ 5amifi Maryadif, Ambikapur, w O.A. Grade-III in 1'he same 5m s under fhe jurisdicfion of iha‘i Sami‘ii. I elecfrifica‘i‘ion of cer'i'ain viiiag However, fhe said Sami‘ii was issoived by rhe $fa‘te Governmenf under The nofifica’rion da’red 36-11- 002 and Thai Sarnifi's acfivi‘ries were Taken over by ihe Chhm‘fisgar Sfafe ElecTr-icify Eoard. I1- was decided 'ihaf ihe services of the emplo ees of fhe said Samiii wiil be absorbed in 'ihe services of the CSEB. $in e fhe dissoiu‘rion of the said Sarnifi ihe pe‘riTioners are working wi’ih ih CSEB. However, ‘i'heir services are no‘r Lawyer for TheS‘mi'e/respondenfs No.1 1sei for respondem‘s No.2 6i 3. i by Brijesh Kumar Sharma and"W.P.‘ kash Singh, relafe +0 ’rhe some issue ie. ‘ Their services in fhe Chhaffisgarh Sfafe They are being decided by “this common ners is #hm‘ Brijesh Kumar Shorma was e Madhya Prudesh 3mmin Vidyu? Sahkari «areas, Ompmkash 5ingh, was working as ’ niTi and 'rha'f 5ami‘ri was looking affer fhe anésma‘cr (WW) / Xl-HC-78 WPM©8M4W 2003 merwam) ‘ mamfw'a; maimanéar AZ; , >aanén§éinéwiir§ it ,/ being absorbed and no specific o The responder»? Eiecfrici‘ry Boar by The pefifioners in Thai‘ respe any heed f0 fhe represen‘m‘rions. These ma‘H‘ers were fiied “raken up for hearing on 13-1-20C in spi're of fhe fime fakenby coL been filed Till foday. Therefore The absence of re‘l’urnifiied by already been gran‘red. Learned counsei for fhe douse (iii) of “(he order da‘red decision was Taken by The Gov WWWWWW $Wanésr rcler in ThaT respecT is being passed by d. Several represenTaTions were mode cT, buT The respondenTs are noT paying peTiTioers/submiTTe Tha in-spiTe of 301-202 (Annex l) hereby ernmen Tha Th services of all he employees of ‘rhe 5ami’ri will be absorbed by 1—120 n The services f The CSEB, The peTiTioners servic regularly working in The service c in W.P.No.2777/2002 filed by KL were members of The SocieTy or as The Managing DirecTor of Tl challenged The 5overnmenT orde Tiled by The CSEB in ThaT wriT Sai shall be absoeein The CSEB, services of The members of The H, in The year 2004 and earlier They were 5, Thereaf‘rer‘ again n 24-3-2005, buT nsel f The reponens, no reTurn as Ts maTTersare bng dispsed of in The esponde, as Se Time as re noT being aobed nd They are f The CSEB. e furTher mTed ThT im‘ Rupiner JeeT arii 4 Thers, who Id Kum. Rupiner ee’r au was work d J Kr ing le amiTi, The peTers in haTcse r akg over of Th miTi. eply Was peTiTion in wic iT menTioned ThaT nd T -10 ure P- w a T T e T —202 i o es a bsr a H subiT a d Kué 9 o S iTion Ta Tin e 5a R hh was miT rbd o , or sdT h hee ei o rnTs ufficinT h matm (1am) ‘ wmmairésr -—E Therefore; no grievance can be fha’t‘ is a policy decision faken q of ‘rhe‘ Cabinet and if was aisd respondam 5umiii are more bé Sainifi, as fheir services have bi “i'he or-dér passed in The said mzoog \ mamféafm » am msim mmli'wm? ‘ $3§Wma made by We members of The Samifi and iy The Governmem affer having approval rrien‘iioned “iha'r the employees of' fhe pefifed Than in ihe employmem of +he ken absorbed in The CSEB.’ In par-a 5 of lwri‘r pe‘ri‘rion, i? is men‘rioned Thai 66; employees of The 5amiTi havl already joined The services of Thel ElecTriciTy Board. Therefore, in view of Annexure P-1 and The sTaTemenT made by - The CSEB in ThaT wriT peTiTion The respondenf ElecTriciTy 30m ‘ .L)me peTiTioner. Therefore, in The circum. wriT peTiTions deserve To be allo‘ direcTed To decide The case of Their services in The CSEB in Ordered accordingly In view of This order, I.R.Nos.8890/2004 and 8888/2004 sTand disposed of. Soma (W.P.No.2777/2002), iT is evidenT ThaT d is required To absorb The services of I, sTances, I am of The opinion ThaT These ‘ wed and The respondenT Board should be The peTiTioners regarding absorpTion of Terms of clause (iii) of Annexure P—1. ParTies are enTiTled for ce ‘rTified copy of This order. / , 36h 00 / SP/FS/2005 - 20,000