W HEGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0. 211 0f2007 l’ETITIONER State of Chhat‘tisgarh Through: Secretarv Transport Department D.K.S. Bhavan RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS . Chhattisgarh Rajya Parivahan Kamachari Maha Sangh, Raipur, Registered under Registration No. 183/RYP/74, Raipur (ca): Regal Omce New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur (C65). Through its Genera} Secretazy Avadssh Pratap Singh. Avadesh Pratap 'Siiigh (EX. Bookmg Agent, MPSRTC, Raipur Depot No. 1. Presentlv on Deputatbii to Nagar Panchayat, Lavan as Asstt Gr. 111. . Narayan Prasad Shanna S/o Shri Eagaxmath Prasad Sharma, (EX. Comiuctor, MPSRTC) Presently posted as Asstt. Revenue Inspector, Kashdolg Distt.: Raipur (C.G.) R/o Azad Chowk, Bramhan Para, Rajpur (CG?) Iqbai Ahmed, S/o Shri Mew Khan (EX. Driver, MPSRTC), Presently posted as Driver in the State Garage, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, R/o Moudhapara; Raipur (C.G.) 413m tr“ ATmN v12 Avmn pnR Megmlr‘ ATEQN m: THE QRDER DATED 5TH JIEY 2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. RESPGNDENTS SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. > E’resent: Shri Sumesh Baiaj, Government Advocate for the petitiotaer/State. Shri Prashant Jztiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 066i day of August, 20M) This is an application for modification of the order dated 6m July, 2006. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the writ petition No. 2325 of 2004, the applicant in this petition, submits that due to typographical mistake, para 10 ofthe reply dated 06.01.2006 tiled by the State, does not reflect the correct position of the policy framed by the State for rehabilitation of the existing employees working with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2 1;) It is iiJrther submitted that unfortunately, this could not be pointed out at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The policy dated 11.03.2003 provides for rehabilitation not' the absorption ofthe existing employees working with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Cotporation. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 06m July, 2006 be accordingly amended and the contents of para 3 ofthe said order be moditied to the extent that “the State of Chhattisgarh is directed to consider the case ofthe petitioners for rehabilitation and deputation”. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, non-applicant herein: would submit that the State has already taken more than three months in seeking amendment ofthe order dated 6th July, 2006. Thus, no indulgence could he shown to the authorities. Be that as it may. Since the policy dated 11.03.2003 is clear and it is admitted by the learned counsel that by mistake it could not be pointed out during the course of hearing the State of Chhattisgarh is directed as above and the State Government is further directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with their policy decision within a period of 6 weeks li‘om today. This order shall not come in the way ofsubsequent decision taken by the State Government to absorb employees, ifso desired. in View ofthe above, this application stands disposed of. > Sd/~ ‘Satish K.Agnihotri Judge