PETITIONER $if¥§h ' genc?‘ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. NO. Brijesh Kumar Shanna S/ 0. Baburam Sharma, Aged gajjg / 3§ (2004 about 44 years, R/o. Darripara, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS State of Chhatu‘sgarh, Through: Secretary; Energy Depth; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Through: it§ Secretary, Danganiya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Addiu‘onal Chief Engineer, Chhatu'sgarh Electricity Board, Trikon Chowk, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Dist-t. SuYguja (CCG) The ecretary, Department of Cooperahve Mantralaya, Ra1pur (C G ) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w—n Ax “Ln Inx VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE // S Xl-HC»78 w?4408w&%m m Wm? W7 aqzoolk mwmm amatrémm‘m mmm anézr mmwwm asW sum 4-5-2005 Mr. Monoj Pamnjpe, coun §el for fhe peTi‘rioners. Lawyer for fhe Sfafe/r'espondenfs No.1 and 4‘ Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Mr. Vinod Desh mukh, cou‘ Hsel for respondenfs No.2 & 3. _ Heard. W.P.No.4408/2004 filer i by Bnijesh >Kumar‘ Sharma and W.P. No.4409/2004 fiied by Ompr-Jknsh Singh relate to the same issue Le; “their services in The Chhaf‘risgarh Smfe I fhey are being decided by *his common absorpfion and regularizafion 01 Elec’rriciTy Board. Therefore, order. The case of The pei‘ifio working as Junior Engineer in 1+ Samifi Maryadii, Ambikapur, w O.A. Grade—III in ‘rhe same 5a: s under The jurisdici’ion of ihai' Samifi. However, the said Sami‘ti was issolved by The Sfafe Governmenf under fhe nofificai‘ion dafed 30‘11- 002 and Thai Samifi's aci‘ivifies were iaken over by ihe Chhafiisgar STafeElecfricify Board. IT was decided Thai ‘rhe services of fhc employ es of the said Samifi will be absorbed in / *rhe services of fhe CSEB. Si e The dissolution of ihe said 5amifi the petitioners are working with th CSEB. However, their services are not ners is ‘rhaf Brijesh Kumar Sharma was e Madhya Pradesh Gramin Vidyu’r Sahkari nereas, Omprakash Singh was working as . pi‘ri and Thai Samifi was looking affer fhe eleoirificafion of cerfain villag / anésrm (mite) / Xl-HC‘78 mum amiai w©¢¢©gwok¢¢0§74zo masr tam (WE) i 03 snésrmtéaw a2“ mammas E‘Wm 111% 311w WW‘#@W $Wma " AZ}- ~ _,—\ order in fhaf respec‘r is. being passed by being absorbed and no specific The respondenT ElecTriciTy Board. Several represenTaTions were made by The peTiTioners in ThaT respecT, buT The respondenTs are noT paying any heed To The represenTaTions. These maTTers were. filed in The year 2004 and earlier They were Taken up for hearing on 13-1-2005, ThereafTer, again on 24-3—2005, buT, in spiTe of The Time Takenby c0L nsel fon The respondenTs, no reTurn has been filed Till Today. Therefore fhe absence of refurnfiled by already been granfed. pefi‘rioners submiffed 'l‘ha‘l in spife of Learned counsel for 'Hqe 30-11-2002 (Annexure P-1) whereby a clause (iii) of The order daTed decision was Taken by The GovernmenT ThaT The services of all The bsorbed by 142-2002 in The services of employees of The Sarnifi wil! be The C5E8,‘The peTiTioners servi es are noT being absorbed and They are regularly working in The service f The CSEB. He furTher submiTTed ThaT in W.P.No.2777/2002 filed by K m. Rupinder JeeT Kaur & 49 oThers, who were’members of The SocieTy d Kum. Rupinder JeeT Kaur was working as The Managing DirecTor of T e SamiTi, The peTiTioners in ThaTcase challenged The GovernmenT ord r Taking over of The SamiTi. Reply was filed by The CSEB in ThaT wriT eTiTion in which iT was menTioned ThaT services of The members of Th SamiTi shall be absorbed in The CSEB, These mailers are being disposed of in rhe respondenls, as sufficient fime has I mm amias wazoog 311%:1m (13m) All maimfi‘aw ammnm WW’§WW ._3 ~ $Wsnéar mmmmw Therefore; no grievance can be nude by fhe members of 'rhe $ami‘ri and fha’r is a policy decision faken by The Governmen‘r after having approval of fhe Cabinet and if was als< menfioned ‘rhaf fhe employees of fhe , respondenf Samifi are more benefifed Than in fhe employment of ‘rhe Samifi, as Their services have been absorbed in fhe C5EB. In para 5 of fhe order passed in 'rhe said wri‘r pe‘ri‘l'ion, if is men‘rioned fha'r 66' employees of fhe Samifi have already Joined The services of The l Elecfrici‘i’y Board. Therefore, in view of Annexure P-1 and The sfafemenf made by l fhe CSEB in Tha’r wrif pe‘ri‘rion (W.P.No.2777/2002), if is evidenf Tha‘r fhe respondenf Elec‘rricify Board is required 1’0 absorb 'rhe services of fhe pefifioner. Therefore, in fhe circum sfances, I am of fhe opinion fhaf fhese Wrif pe‘rifions deserve fo be allowed and The responden‘r Board should be ‘ direcfed To decide The case of fhe pe‘ri‘rioners regarding absorp‘rion of fheir services in fhe 'CSEB in Terms of clause (iii) of Annexure P—1. \' , Ordered accordingly: In view of This order, I.A.Nos.8890/2004 and 8888/2004 sTand disposed of. Par-Ties are enTiTled for certified copy of This order. / l gw’ v00 9““ Soma 0- e \, wo% i Vo SP/FS/2o -2o,ooo 4i? ,yn K