g— { @ B [Serv1ce Matter! \ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH! WRIT PETITIONISI N0.Q IQL/I (2010. ' 9f“ PETITIONER: Jaiprakash Jaiswal, son of Late Kalpnath Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 57 years, working as Assistant Grade-3 at Sub Divisional Office, Kunkuri, M2/532,\ ; District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1 State of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary Transport Department D K S Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Managmg Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, (Trasnport Department) Renuka Dwar Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur Chhattlsgarh 3 Collector, Jashpur Dlstrlct Jashpur, * K Chhattisgarh. 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : WM wrW $sffémané¥l sB ; Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moh‘ 23—08-2010 Shri C. Jayant K. Rae, coun‘ Smt. Smita Ghai, Panef Law Heard Grievance of the petitionel petitioner, who was an employee Road Transport Corporaticn (ln s disposa! of Chhattisgarh lnfrastruc organization of State Vide order petitioner was sent on deputation to the District Office Jaspur Chhattisgarh Learned oounsei appearin petitioner is continuing on deputat dated 20-04—2010 (Annexure P-3) be considered, but so fan no fine has been taken. an Shrivastava, J. §el for the petftioner‘ yer for the State/respondents. as set out in the petition is that the E or erstwhile Madhya Pradeeh State ,hort “MPSRTC"), was placed at the tore Deveiopment Corporation after re— dated O8 06 2006(Annexure P 1) the in W,P.(S)No.3a13 of 201c b for the petitioner submits that the ton since tong and in View of the order petitioner's case of absorption has to i decieion in respect of his absorption (Shn‘ Bhagwat Ram Sahu we. State of Chhettisgarh and Others), thus Court passed an order on 27‘“ July, 2010 directing the respondents th situated empioyees of erstwhile accordance with the rules of abeo after taking into consideration 1 government from time to time. erein to consider the case of similarly MPSRTC for absorption strictly in ‘ption framed by the respondentlState, he various circulars iesued by the i “t n{@1', (1‘:T-Tii(1f{d ..—.[.‘S/i47‘2’2(il(t —~e1,0\‘},000t W31 mm ‘mm (Wu) WWW ~Z/ Accordingly, this petition is finaii the respondent authorities to canside absorption strictiy in accordance with ti the State Government in respect of the in View of the statement made that the age of superannuation shortly, respo regard to petitioner’s case as early as pc l WWW «imam mwnwm %'afcma11%¥r y disposed off with a direction to 1the claim of the petitioner for ie policy of absorption framed by employees of erstwhile MPSRTCA petitioner would be attaining the wdents shall take decision with issible. r V Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava i 7 N Judge Tumane i \ t \ \ FITI “JCS/1 47A2/2m 0 i1 $0,000. Z want: nah gimme , E1200 i