IN THS HIGH COURT_ OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W..P._NO^ £_1 /20 O4 PETITIONERS / . /^ ^••<yf ^w'/ >-x€^/ :\ ^v^.. ^N. ^. /^^ ^/y V y/. '^ s 1) Vikash Chakraborty S/o Late A.K^ Chakraborty^ Aged about 39 years^ R/o J.P. C©lony D.B.29, South Eastern Coal Pields Ltd Korba, Distt.Korba (CG)« 2} Amarjlt Singh S/o Late Jogender Singh^ ^ Aged about 26 years^ R/o (Jungle Colony House No. M/26 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG)• 3) Deepak Mukherjee S/o S.K. Mukherjee, Aged about 29 years^ a/o Sharda Vihar, MIG-52 Near Araaraiya^ Korba District-Korba (CG)• 4) N»D» Bhattacharya S/o T.B^ Bhattacharya^ Aged about 40 years^ R/o LIG-8, Shivaji Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (CG). VERSUS RESPOiStDENTS -^^-.'^. <!. ^ -._ . '-. ^^if^^ ">-3^^. 1) South Eastern Coalfie&d Ltd, Through its Managing Direct^r S.E.CL. Seepat Road^ Biiaspur^ Distt.Bilaspur (CG) 2) The Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Seepat R©ad<, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) • 3) The General Manager (Perso- nnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd * Seepat Road^ Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (CG)• 4) The Personnel Manager^ South" -- Eastem Coalfields Lt Korba Area^ Korba District-Korba (CG) . 5) The Works Manager^ Central Electrical & Mechani -cal Workshop^ S.E^C.L.^ Korba Distt. Korba (CX3) • ill S WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF :LJ? D I A XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T ^i<=h3TT^T ^Tt^^cf 3^T ^I^M^I, ^Tfl<-IJI<o, [^<ril^y< ,3TTip?T^^" y.p.No. ^7/^-^4-. ^W^{[ $b*<lch """""""'Y<t' ^rqr 20° W^T ?^<TTW ^f?cf 19.09.2006 Shri P. Diwakar, SrJ counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukhd Arauments heard. Order dictated as foUoi^s: <^i^?<n41-i w^ff ^fl^t ^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^rf Advocate with Shri P.R. Pataiikar, |, counsel for fhe respondents. Oral Order Bv wav of this writl Detition filed under Article 226 of Constitution oflndia, the pejtitioners, who are the General Mazdoor Categoiy-1, workiae ui S.E.(p.L., Korba have chaUenged the legaUty |& 15.12.2003 (Annexure-P/6) passed oforders dated 31.07.20031 by the Maaagement, by whi<| kept in CWS Korba, should 1 The brief facts are ft h tliey have been directed to agam joia in their orisiiial nlace i.e. Kolrba area on account of reason that the petitioners were not I.TJ. 4°lders an<l ttle persons required to be beUie t.T.I. holders. ^at these petitioners were workiiig as ,.\, General Mazdoor Cateeoiv-1 m fhe underground mmes in Korba brders of the Maiiagement, they were ^here thev had to perforai surface dutv\ ^ouiisel for the petitioners that as the undercroiuid dutv suice last 9 years, |e surface duty on Uieir appUcations areaofS.E.C.L. Bv earlier transfeiTed to CWS Korba, \f It is subinitted bv leanied i petitioners were workiag io.| thev were ti^iisferred to after takmg no objection fro^n the concemed Department by orders dated 19.08.2002, 24.08.20'32 aad 26.08.2002, coUectively ffled as Aiinexure-P/5. His further ^ubmission is fhat many persons, who were not I.T.I. holders werel &iven surface dutv from un< XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f<^i<+>3^T 9h^ich^ff?cT 3^T ^I^Krl^l, ^TH^^Ko, Rl^tW^< _/Al,P,M.o,67^'2-^4' *41^d1$h^|ch ---------y- ^ 200 " IdDQa :f^ 3TT^r ^TT^K ^f?cf ~2<- ^rafepft^r qro^" rr fWt ^RCT; ^'3Tf^R'3TT^T duty and they have been d^taiaed by the Maiiagement aiid fhe petitioners have been chosen |;o sent back to the underground duty agaia which is discriiauiatorvj and deserves to be set aside by this Court. A retuni on behalf of tlie Maaagement has been filed. It has been stated m the retuni tljiat fhe impugned orders have been issued after takiag into cons C^ntral E/M Workshou Korb^kwas for I.T.I, holder workers and ou scrutiav it was found that though thev were not haviag deration fhat fhe reauirement at the Laadvertently, the petitioners names were also processed aiid th.e)}7 were posted at Central Workshop, requisite quali&cation from I.T.1.. The submission of learned couns^l for the respondents is that fhe basic appomtments of the petitioners were made for perfbrmmg underground duty aad fhe p^titioners caanot, as a matter of right^ claim for their postiag on surjface dzity aad no statutory provisions permit to do Uke tihis. It is not disputed in. ftjiis case by bofli fhe parties that fhe petitioners arc not I.T.I. hold^rs. It is farther not disputed that the basic appomtments of the T}etitioners were made for performmg underground duty in the c4al mines. The only point raised by leanied counsel for the petiti^ners is that siace the cases of ofher uersons, who are not I.T.I. hblder, are traie to time considered by the Maiiagement for tlieir po submission is that once fhe fhat should not be taken awa|vr. stmg on surface duty, the cases'of the uetitioners were considered ^iid thev were piven surface dutv. His surface dutv was awarded to fhem, XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T ^J4>3TT^T '^rfN $h^jch v^'•^ 3^T ^I^Krl^, ^Tn^^KS, f^<ni^^< . ^,P.Mo. 67-/ ^IN^I sh*<|ch ---------Y- ^ '200 Icl^ 3T^T ^<rrw ^fgcT 3 In the opiiiion of fhis C^ inade bv resuondents in. the holders, are onlv reauu'ed fot Mechamcal Workshop aad posted on tliat place, ia absei3[< cannot be issued ui favour of allowed to be posted at the qualiilcatiou froni I.T.I. However, as stated by that maiiy persons who are 114 on siirface, aad fhere is red petitioners inake a aad the concenied autiiorith rcpresentation made by tl4 petitioners may fUe repre^ aufhority and tf such a repr^ order is fUed withra 3 weeks decide the saiae ia an objectil benefit caii be piven to fh^ underground duty of about ^ them. With the aforesaid obs^ disuosed of. represent^tion <=bi^[<yi^lyi npT^ff ^f teI<Ft' <Ri<-<i< ^3T^R'3:fT^T ^urt, m view of the spect&c pleadiags r^tum that the persons who are I.T.I. ^ workiag in C'entral Electrical aad |fhe petitioners were iaadvertently (ce of aiiv statutorv provisions, a writ the petitioners that they should be s^id place, tliough they do not have a learaed counsel for tiie petitioners ^t I.T.I. holder have been given duties luu'ement for the Detitioners. let the before the concemed aiithoritv ^ should take a decision on fhe ^ petitioners. If so advised, the ^entatloa(s) before the concenied ^sentation along with a copy of fhis Ifrom todav, the said authorit\7 shall ^e maiiner at tiie earUest and if aav petitioners, lookiag to their long vears, that mav be considered bv rvations, the petition staiids fmaUy Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (<N?y^) ¥