^S^^SM^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WritADpealNo. ^ of200^^ APPELLANT/: (Petitioner) Ram Pravesh Shrivastava, S/o Late J.P. Shrivastava, Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Retired employee ofSouth Eastem Coalfields Limited, R/o Village: Maehakna, Police Station: Hussamganj, District: Siwan, Bihar. - Versus - RESPONDENTS: »?...^••"1- -^^ ^^'.&-•" 1^^^"" r^: ^•- ^';^--"2. •^^'^ - l/ ^.^' y ^' Soutii Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ChiefGeneral Manager, South Eastem Coadfields Ltd., Bishrampur, District: Surgtija, Chhattisgarh. General Manager, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Bishrampur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Colliery Manager, New Mines, Kunda, Incline at Bishrampur CoHiery, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Legal Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7. Deputy General Manager-cum- Deputy ChiefMining Engineer, South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Bishrampur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh. WjRLTAPPEAL UNDER RULE 157 SUB-RULE 0^ OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULE8. 2005 HIGH COURT OF JUD1CATURE CHHATTISGARM : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. APPELLANT RiSPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL N0.29 OF 2007 Ram Prav^h Shrivastava Versus South Eastern Coalflelds Ltd. & Others Present: Shri Rajveev Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 26W February, 2007) The following oral order of ttie Court was passed by H.L Dattu, CJ. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the leamed Single Judge jn W.P.No.1774/1992 on 5-7-2006. 2) Facts in brief are : The appellant before us was appointed as Ma^loor, Category-1 in South Eastern CoalTields Limited in the year 1974. By an order dated 20-3-1977, his services were terminated. AggrSeved by the aforesaid order, he had filed a petition before the High Cotirt of Madhya Pradesh. The writ petition came to be disposed of by ttie Court vide its order dated 22-6-1990 by taking into consideration the statement made by learned counsel for tiie respondents in the said writ petition. In fact, the only statement that was made by learned counsel for the respondents in the said writ petition was that fresh appointment order will be issued to the appellant. —2-- 3) By an order dated 16-10-1990 respondents gave a fresh appointment to the appellant. He had questioned ttie said order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh only on the ground, that, tie is entitled for fresh appointment with effect from 20-3-1977. Learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petition by his order dated 5-7-2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had approached ttie Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he has withdrawn the Special Leave Petition filed, with liberty to file writ appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. That is how the appellant is before us. 4) Shri Shrivastava, learned counset for the appettent, would submit that when the respondents gave fresh appointraent to the appellant, they should have given it from the date of terminsrtion i.e. 20-3-1977. 5) We have seen the orders passed by the Hlgh Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 22-6-1990. The Court while disposing of the writ petition had taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents in the said wr'rt petition, who had only stated that fresh appointment order would be issued to the appeltant. A proper reading of the orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court; it would only indicate, that the respondents would issue a fresh appointmerrt order to the appellant. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination 'rt can be infarred that the appointment would be made from the date v^ien ttie appellant was terminated from his service. Rightly taking into consideration all these facts, the leamed Single Judge has dSsmissed the writ petttion. l' We do not see any error in the order passed by learned Slngle judge, which may call for our interference. 6) In view of the above, the writ appeat requires to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. Ordered accordingjy^, Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge