(^^- \ PETITIONER: f fl>°\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. 2^83 /2011 Chandan Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramsewak Gupta, aged about 58 years, Occupation Service, Assistant Grade III, posted at Nagar Panchayat Ahiwara, District Durg (C.G.) .^"^ ^^•^ ^s^-'' icr^ ^' ••* ^»•' €^ ^ V w /• VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) -^State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Transport Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) Secretary Urban Administration Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3) Coniniissioner Urban Adininistration and Developinent Department Directorate Raipur (C.G.) 4) Joint Director, Urban Adm.inistration and Development, Regional Office, Subhash Stadium Raipur (C.G.) ^ 5) Nagar Panchayat Ahiwara, fhrough its Chief Municipal Officer, Ahiwara, District Durg (C.G.) 6) Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation through its Managkig Director (CIDC) Shstri Chowk Raipur. 7) ^ Divisional Manager Chhattisgarh Infrastructure -Development Department, Anianaka Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. 311^1 W ft-li* '^rar 011^1 st>*itqt WH^II fll*iiq» ^sr •<)it)i<n<<,. ^^ly'ici, fijciKHy .^A:.Q..^..:.^.±.QSlL1. 3fWf ''W^i (•i^I^'K^) WIKR ^ifcr sii^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mdhan Shrivastava. J. 16-06-201T Shri Rajesh Kumar Shanr^a petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputyl No.1,2and4. This petition has been fllefi absorb his service in accordance of surplus employees of erstwtf (MPSRTC). Case of the petitioner is Booking Agent on 21/5/1973 in th| White he was so continuing, upo| organisation Act, 2000, the as^ apportioned between the Assistant Grade-tll in Nagar (Annexure P/2). Learned counsel appearinj has been denied absorption. As as the State Government has erstwhile MPSRTC employees in State Government, the petitioner i( said policy. Shri Sharma submits that t before this Court in the matter of| Court, after having considered the| succesfeor *i*i!<'i<fl-< w^vS ^fs^t <I"it(i< ^aiRiiian^l and Shri Basant Kaiwartya, counsel for the |Advocate Generai for the State/respondents le(i by the petitioner for issuance of direction to <vith the poiicy of the Governmsnt in the matter (iie M.P. State Road Transport Corporatton |that the petitioner was initially appoirrted as ^ service of M.P. Road Transport Corporation. (i re-organisation of the State under M.P. Re- (ets and tiabilities of the Corporation were States and the petitioner was posted as P^nchayat, Ahiwara vide order dated 8/6/04 ^ for the petitioner submits that the petitioner p^r the policy aecision of the State Government alr^ady framed Rules of absorption for absorbing [different Corporafions and departments in the ^ also entitled to be absorbed according to the |he aforesaid issue eame upfor consideration lA.K.Dwivedi v. State of C.G. & others. This |facts, passed the order as under: SjllUflfl flsno lii;"!!*'!, <l»l-li<i'IM—FS/140—2/20tl—1,50,000. .^•€T^ '''(^:'^ "^ %i»»»" ?t:ssSS. 'S^h % % t yj sii^rw Ri-ii* TWT 3H^T st>*ii<o ^ITWT a»*iicn 's^f '<ii'tii<n4, »Tii<-i'i<o, fi<c!iy^< ...to.:.fc^).1±5.;..^^^({ sn^T T^w ('j'il^q^) TOIIW ^lfcf SII^T s?- '*i<<irt<fl'< ^WvS ^is^ <tai<4i< ^sffilHSII^I Talong in1oconsideratic|n the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the policy of Absorj)tion,the Rule of Absorption framed by the State Govemm^nt in the matter of absorption of employees of eretwhite| MPSRTC and further that targe number of similariy situ^ted employees have already been absorbed in various d^parfments of the Government in implementation ofthe Ab^orption Policy and that the petitioner is going to retire on31 |August, 2010, it is directed that the case of the petitioner for ^bsorption shail be considered by the concemed respondent ai|rthorities, strictly in accordance with the Rul®of Absorption ]framed by the respondent No.1, as expeditiously as possibief Learned counsei for the ^etitioner submits that the petitioner is also similariy situated and therefore, difection may be issued for consideration of his case for absorption in terms ofthe ^oticy ofthe State Govemment at the earliest, as the petitioner is going to retir^ on 30/06/2011. The order dated 6/8/2010 passed in A.K. Dwivedi (Supra) No.97/2010 (State of Chhattisga; decided on 27/8/2010 to the effect particutar department or institute. fonA/arded the case ofthe petitione| Having regard to the facts the case of absorption of the petiti(j has further been clarified in Review Petition |i and Othere v. A.K.i3wivediand another) that there was no direction for absorption in a He further submits that • local body has rforconsiderah'on. Learned State counsel sub(nitsthat the case ofthe petitioner would atso be considered in accordance with Ibw. situation of the case, as aforestated, as the petitioner is going to rettre on 30/0p/11, the respondent authorities may conskler ner in accoreiance with the rules of absorption and policy decision of the State, asj ordered in A.K.Owivedi (supra). Wrth the aforesaid observalfons, the petition is finaily disposed of. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i(fl*)<ffi^ ^•ifltl ^tlll^, tlWWIH—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. fy 4