@: lll°i: .I&THaHl©H;^©!@Ra>iE Hla®gaRliti^ •^::'".?(©aMftffiliii^R %?M:;s.;:;;;»^ :^:^.:^':<^::'^.pt(s)lMKE®^ ^.^^ •^^^ ^•.:'':Sk^rfK!^ » ^i^^^j yss yaai rETI'I'I@NEiR' ^; ;.^Q;PB,,Smgh/..S)'o.-,^ate:'::P;R...J-SingKg :':':^age^'^58..years,^i\v®rkirig''':as^^st;i ^^'©TaM^':MuriiEigal^©G>uiiG^^^^ ?;:^jgisf:^M3ai,.(C£:G^)ll^:,y;^:'',!:^:.''^^^^^^^^^ ^^?ERSIJ&..:,," .::''.-'/\.:1.,^.:-:'," -.,,':'.".- •RESffi®%^:®% )Sl%^^fiff:[|:c^ ,^.'fl^;:?:^.;'K|;.^;^^^?:'!^ ;.,..-'i^^i:-'.'^D^.:S^filiawan,Saipur^^ WSSI s:^^l .:WJ^*1..^ ^wyw'M ''•-^S^Bis f^K^w ^^s^^^S ^t^^p) ^i^;M ^SeeFetlaryi^^enei^^^niui^ti-a^ •'P^ar1Fienf^:;feS^Iiawaia?-^aiRU:r: !:(G?G^,,i,;'. ^»?v :':^^3)^y§ser|tai^;^:^baiiii^imnistj^ ^:w/'^;;' :s'@?v^®I:(m®^ .^';'.s;^: ^@Kawan^'<I^p^;(©^ ^(4)^-^^C;0immssiaHS^^Qrl3gs:;^^^ .^&;y;:;,':[l;'^E)®YeK:!@ffient?;:^^y .i^ireettora^^:Rm@Et:p®.©.i);' ^'Sfi^ci^^^imeiIg^gi^^.^tHgGQ^ -rt^^C|i^ef'.iKl^icaeaI|^£fK^;gBe^ s@isffi^)E^ia|tiSU|^^ y^^ '^. '^ ^5©MaSijsgaJBi.te®gCT;:aB% ii©Syel^gjrEieBtt[?^^r^;EN|i®tJ|:%1^H'®jgSj ats?^^aH;g^ngj;j^reG|E0jg|&@||@|@|,| ?SMaStrl:®|ieffi1|,sRaitffiiR^Cj.^^!|g;gJ; •.IE,! tt ®i|CTs3Qn.al|gy^|Ba^er'|i^ 3iy^as|CT||;»|Eet/.|^a^^ i©e|>agffiB|^|^@gisisic)B:a3||g|j|Eg|[^|| a|ig§gi|ii®l® VSSSssls ®%aa WRTT PETmON UNDER AR'FieLE 22&THE CONSTlTUTlON OF INDIA 1 i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONCS') No. 5521 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS O.P.Singh. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DMDIA SBiHonMeShnSatislLK. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Vinod Deshmiikh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. lto4. Shri Ratan Pusty, Adyocate for the respondent No. 6 and 7. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 21st day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents, specially the respondent No. 6 and 7 to absorb the petitioner m service on the ground of being the employee of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the MPSRTC'). Further, the petitioner may be considered for absorption in service of the- respondent No. 5 on the post ofAssistant Grade II. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P/25) whereby the petitiQner was directed to be superannuated v/.e.f. 31.01.2011(A.N.). 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the pefitioner was an employee ofthe erst^hile MPSRTC as hewas appointed on the post ofLower Division Clerk on 21.03.1972. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Cashier on 20.05.1985. The petitioner was sent on deputation tothe Municipal Council, Dipika, where he worked .t^M-i a.iy&.,s B s- as Assistant Grade II. The erstwhile MPSRTC was dissolved w.ef. 31.12.2002 vide notification dated 26.12.2002. The staff was to be divided on the basis of'as is, where is' basis, as on 01.11.2000. The petitioner was working inMumcipal Council Dipika, District Korba, within the territorialjurisdiction ofthe State ofChhattisgarh. By order dated 24.05.2004, the services ofthe petitioner was placed imder the respondent No. 6 and thereafter, he was sent on depufation agairi to the Municipal Council, Dipika on 02.06.2004. By letter dated 26.04.2010, the petitioner was infonned regarding his superannuation on attaining the age of58 years w.e./ 31.01.2011, by the respondentNo. 7. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied absorption. As per the policy decision of the State Govemment as the State Govemment has already framed Rules of absorption for absorbing erstwhile MPSRTC employees in different Corporations and Departments in the State Govemment. 4. Shri Deshmukh submits that the aforesaid issue came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of A.K.Dwivedi v.State of C.G. & Others . This Court, after having considered the facts, passed the order as under: "Takmg into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the policy of Absorption, the RuleofAbsorption framed by the State Govemment in the matter of absorption of employees of erstwhile MPSRTC and further that large number of similarly situated employees have already been absorbed in various departments of the Govemment in implementation of the Absorption Policy aud fhat the petitioner is going to retire on 31 August, 2010, itis directed that the case of the petitioner for ' W.P.(S) No. 4245/2010, decided on 06.08.2010 ^ :"-^^^s^;:^sssh^^ S l".a»s.afisi| st>.'i*, °^v>e'., '''!&>.„ 't€ i£* absorption shall be considered by the concemed respondent authorities, strictly in accordance with the Rules of Absorption framed by the respondent No. 1, as expeditiously as possible." 5. Shri Deshmukh further submits that in the instant case, the same order may be passed as flie petitioner is going to retu-e-on31.01.2011. the order dated 06.08.2010 passed in A.K.Dwivedi (supra), has further been clarified in Review Petition No. 97/2010 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. A.K.Dwivedi & Another), decided on 27.08.2010 to the effect that there was no du'ection for absorption in a particular department or institute. 6. Leamed counsel appearing forthe respondents agree with submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and submit that the same order may be passed in this case also. 7. Having regard to the facts situation ofthecase, as aforestated, since the petitioner is going to retire on 31.01.2011, the respondent authorities may consider absorption of the petitioner in accordance with the mles of absorption and policy decision of the State, as ordered 'mA.K.Dwivedi (supra). 8. In view ofthe above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/-,::,, SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Amit "39