BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) No. 'sy3^' /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ?-<JosA ^ ^y ^\^y^ Harish Chandra Jain, S/o. Late Shankar Lal Jain, aged about 58 years, Assistant Grade-111, Office of District Collectorate, Jashpur, District Jashpur, R/o. Jashpur, District Jahspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1 '' The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) 1'^" 3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Parivahan Prabhag), Renuka Dwar, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 311^81 •^llgiR? ^l ffi*1t<ft \^ ^sr •<ii'iii"i4i, ^•(il+i'Ko, 'fNyfrey (OP©v-o'5.?5^Jl' Sf^ T5RT Ci<<i^«l<^i) 'Rniw^ftasD^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra MohAn Shrivastava. u. 17-Q6-2011 ^RMtt •WRfftf ft^t tfW^R ^•sifmsn^r Shri A.K.Prasad, counsei for<l Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawy^r This petition has been fiied j) he petitioner. r for the State. ?y the petitioner for issuance of direction to -absorb his service in accordance wilfi the policy of ihe Govemment in the matter of surplus employees of eretwhii^ flVIPSRTC). Case of the petitioner is th^t Ihe petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the service of M.P.S.RI organisation of the State under n/I.P| iiabilities ofthe Corporation were ap| the petitioner was posted as Assisljant Grade-111 in ihe Coiiectorate - Jashpur vide order dated 8?'6/06 (Annexure P, has been denied absorption. As per erstwhiie MPSRTC empioyees in di^ State Govemment, the petitioner is ^ said poiicy. S'hri Prasadsubmits ihat the before this Court in the matter of AJ Court, after having considered the fa Taking into consideration case, the po!icy of Absorpti by the State Governmenl M.P. State Road Transport Corporation T.C. Whiie he was so continuing, upon re- Re-organisation Act, 2000, the assets and lortioned between the successor Stat^ and 1). Learned counsel appearing fpr the petitioner submits that the petitioner he policy decision of the State Govemment as the State Government has airea(fy framed Rules of absorption for absorbing ferent Corporations and departments in ihe iso entitled to be absorbed according to the aforesaid issue came UD for consideration ;.Dwivedi v. State of C.G. & others. Thls i|;ts, passed the order as under: the facts and ciroumstances of the i|3.n, the Rule of AAsorptlon framed m the matter of absorption of employees of erslwhiie I^IPSRTC and further that large number of similariy situat^d emptoyees have already been •Riria—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. SII^T VI Itt-li'ti ^sff 3n^?T st»*iieh f w Deepti 7°f •^i4i<vi<i, ^^1^1(0, 'fewry (o. p.Q,") ^o. ^^^^Jii 3?TOI TRq; (•^qf^^sr) yFHIWHtel SII^T ^—i 0<'- absorbed in various df implemente-tion ofths ^ is going to retire on 31 j case of the petitioner for ^bsorpt concerned respondent aj the Ru'ies of Absorption expeditiously as possiblej Learned counsel for the simiiariy situated and therefore, dij case Tor aDsorption in tenns ot as the petitioner is going to retir^ passed in A.K. Dwivedi (Supra) No.97/2010 (State of Chhattisga( decided on 27/8/2010 to the effectl particuiar department or institute). forwarded the case of the pe1itione| Learned State counsel be considered in accordance with Having regard to the facte| petitioner is going to retire on the case 01 absorption of the absorption and policy decision With the aforesaid the^ioiicy observations •mfepNimrif ^ fecS <Fai«ti< •^sifgnan^T ipartments of the Government in sorption Polfcy and that (he petitioner August, 2010, it is directed that the tion shall be considered by the jthorilies, strictiy in accordance with framed by the respondent No.1, as j)etitioner submits that the petitioner is also I'ection. may be issued for consideration of his ofthe State Government at the eariiast, on 30/06/2011. The order dated 6/8/2010 tias further been clarined in Review Pelition |h and Others v. A.K.Dwivedi and another) |that there was no direction for absorption in a He further submits that locat body has ;[- for consideration. that the csse of the petitioner would also tew. Isituation of the case, as aforestated, as the , the respondent authorities may consider tietitioner, in accordance with the rules of >(e State, as ordered in A.K.Owivedi (supra). i, the petition is finaily disposed of. subtnits 30/06/11 ofttte Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge »ll(l-fllil^ll l^"lld*l, (RFIWira—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.