mm‘cvm«~V‘v~ m-iv'v \*“W" “N Y mm Hma coma: OF Jimmm‘mzg AT BxLAsiPZvR v(c‘. m G‘?.¥)’ m3; -LL( 89/0 9 PE'X‘ITIOIqER : Ganesh Sh’ngh Sengar; S/O Late M.s. ' Sengar; aged about 59 years. R/O Latia, Past - mcaltara, nistt- Janjgir-Champa (C..G.) ERSU ' ' VS through—Tha Chairmar: Cum Eanagi Director Cement Corporation of India Ltd; Cores-5, Scop Comole Lodhi Roaé, New Delhi-11003 Cemont corporation of India Lt through-Director ?er$oraa1, Core—5. Scop Complex-7, Lodhi Road, Kiev Delhi— 11003 through- General Manager, Cemant Manohar Cemont Factory, Distt- Raipu WRIT‘PEE‘ITIG'N {EEER WICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUE‘IGIQ 05‘ IEIDIA . é W“ ' ' V n x- d 0 r. — ' nun}... ‘- _..’_.I..8.D.].a__2mU. m §m$ .n. . “a 200 311%31 m.(w§aa) Ram-{mama " ‘ WW§W $al%qanéet 13.5.2005 Mr‘ Kundan Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Heard, The petitioner, who was: working as General Supervisor in the factory of Cement Corporation of India at Akaltara, has preferred this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1997 the petitioner was traneferred from Akaltara‘ to Yeraguntal factory in Tamil Nadu, against which petitioner filed a petition bearing W.P.No.4384]97, which deicd d by order dated 11.11‘1997 and . Corporation was directed to onsider’the representation of the petitioner. When the represe itation of the petitioner was not considered then he again filed a petition bearing WP. No.8141’98 and in that petition also on 4.3.1998 the Court directed the Corporation to coneider the c se of the petitioner within a period of one month. When the orde of the Court was not complied with then the petitioner again filed petition bearing WP. No.2233/98‘ nihich Came to be decided on 30.10. 1998 and in Paragraph 6 of the said order the Court obs’wed that “it is relevant to mention on behalf of the respondents has stated that till the representatmn of the petitioner was rejected by order dt. 12. 12. I997, he'shail e entitiedfor the salary. Thereafter, ‘ till the petitioner joins to th ost to be assigned by respondent here that Mr. Manon appeari SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 W t n e “ WW;W;W mmma; .._. _ mzoo mam (W) {i‘aarsnééfmm‘m éxrcmmm ‘ , ,mmwanéa ' 'wmanéa No‘ L' admis§ibie Eeavefor the il‘Wervening period shall be granted, in case he appiiedfor grant of leag‘Ie. m this petitidn the mam grievance of the petitianer is that after joining duties by the pekitioner on 13.2.1999 he moved for grant of admissible leave ibr the period commencing from 13.12.1997 to 12.2.1999, however, that admieeible leave has not been sanctioned by the regipondents. In the circumstances, » ‘co'unsel for the petitioner subitaits that petitioner may be allowed V, \ to make a representation to relepondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 be directed to decide the eame \in accordance with law. Having heard learned cciunsel for the petitioner’and having regard to the facts and oircumstances of the case, the petitioner is allowed to make a representation. to reepondent‘ No.1 within a period of 15 days from today i‘aising all his grievances and requesting for sanction of admlissible leave and in turn resyondent No.1 «is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within another period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation'after considering the points raised by the'petitioner in—an objective manner. Respondent No.1 should ensure that if any leave is admissible to the petitioner then same may’ be sanctioned to him in accordance with the rules and law. With the direction aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, all pending LAS stand disposed of. l tEertified copy as per rulifs. i i ”ii. w: ' ’ L.c.BHAD°° sal- Qatar e Q' 5» SP/FS/2OO5V2O,OOO a t if "