C^ 1' SINGUE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) N0. / ^ OF 2010 t ^- < ^ PETITIONER ^\ ^^ ^w^ ^'^•^ RESPONDENTS : ^"""T^, ^ ^sff^ tssy / ^ Vashishtha Narayan Singh Son of Late Shri Baleshwar Singh, aged about 59 years, Resident of Navapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Special Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^ 3. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Infrastructure Development Corporation, Transport Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ^ 4. The Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh State Infrastructure Development Corporation, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^J^ ^>uc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) No. 14 of2010 PETITIONER : Vashistha Narayan Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofCMiattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER .^RTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hosi'Me ^Shri Safeh K. Agaiihotri, J. Present: S'hi'i V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shii P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lav-vyer fortlie State/respondent 1 & 2. ORALORDER (Passed onn6cdayof January, 2010) 1. By this petition, tlie petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner for absoiption m of his servic.es in the CoiyoratioiVBoai'd as per its own circuiar withiii the stipulated period. 2. The facts m brief^ as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver m Madhya Pradesh- State Road Transport Coi-poration on 16.1.1980. After aboiition of the MPSRTC on 31.12.2002, the petitioner was sent on deputatioii to the Chliattisga!*h State Garage, Raipur vide order dated 3.2.2003. The-reafter, the services of the petitioner was engaged by the State Govenmient m various departments. On 21.4.2008, the services ofthe petitioner came to an end oii attaimng the age of superaimuation ^.ef. 31.12.2008. Being aggiieved, the petitioner prefcn'ed a writ petition beiiig W.P.(S) No. 7069//2008 before the leamed Divisiosi Bench ofth.is Court challengmg the order dated 24.1.12008, ^iereby the petitioner was mtimated regarding his superaimuation u7.^./.' 31.12.2008 after completion of 58 years ofservice on the ground ofrecording ofhis date ofbirth in the service records as 01.01.1951. The said petition was disposed ofby the leamed Division Bench on 19.12.2008 reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a. representation before the authorities concemed, in tum, the respondent authorities were directed that if a representation was filed within a period of7 days, the same would be considered within a flirther period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofthe representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made a represeiitation before the resposideirt authorities which, after due consideration, was rejectedbythe impugned order dated 27.01.2009 (Aimexure P/l). 3. ?t appears fliat tlie petitioner lias raised the quesfion ofabsoiptioii m the department also in the said represeiitation. The representation for absoiption was also rejected by the impugiied order dated 27.1.2009. Thus, this petition. 4. The petitioner, whilc seeking quashing of the impugiied order dated 27.1.2009, has tlirther prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider his representation for absoiption, The case ofthe petitioner is that the petitloiier is entitled to absorptioii as per the guidelines dated nil (Amexure P/5) issued by the Special Secretary, Transport Department, Govenmient of Chhattisgarh. It appears that these giiidelines does not have statutory tlavour as the same has not been passed either under .ALrticle 166 ofthe Constitution oflndia or under any provisions oflaw, Even otherwise, the giiidelines of this nature caimot be eiifbrced by a prerogative writ exercised by this court iii exercise of its power under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. The petitioner has further failed to prove that under any statutory provisions ^dierein the petitionei? has acquired any right to be considered for absoiption, asid as such, it can safely be held that the petitioner has 110 legal, statutory or constitutional riglit to be considered for absorption. Accordingly, no writ seekmg eiiforcement of the giiidelines (Amexure P/5) may be issued in this case. 5. The petitioti, being devoid of merit, is accordiiigly dismissed at the motion stage itself Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Asnit