@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. N0. 254 01‘20{)7 PETITIONE'R State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary Transpor& Department D.K.S. Bhavan RAIPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS . Chhatiisgarh Rajya Parivahan Kamachari Maha Sangh, Raipur, Registered under Registration No. 183/RYP/74, Raipur (C.G.), Regd. Office New Bus Staxid, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Through its General Secretary Avadesh Pratan Singh. 2. Avadesh Pratap Singh (Ex. ‘Boolang Agent, MPSRTC, Raipur Depot No. V1. Presently on Deputation t0 Hagar Pajichayat, Lavan as Asstt. Gr. III. 3. Narayan Prasad Sharma S/o Shri haemath Prasad Shanna, (EX. Conductor, MPSR’E‘C) Presently posted as ASstt. Revenue Inspector, Kashdol, Dim; Raipur (C.G.) R/o Azad Chowk, Bramhan Para, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Iqbal Ahmed, S/o Shri Mery Khan (Ex. Driver, MPSRTC), Presently posted as Driver in the State Garage, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, RJ’o Moudhapara, Raipur (C‘GJ APPLICATION PRAYING FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 6m JULY 2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Sumesh Baiai, Government Advocate for the petitioner/State. Shri Prashant Jaisvval, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Asgai‘, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on O6“; day of August, 2007) This is an application for modification of the order dated 6m July, 2006.: -‘ Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the writ petition No; 3064 of 2004, the applicant in this petition, submits that‘Odue to typographical mistake, para 10 ofthe reply dated 06.01.2006 filed by the State, does not reflect the correct position of the policy named by the State for rehabilitation of the existing employees working with the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 2. It is further submitted that unfortunately, this could not be pointed out at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The policy dated 11.03.2003 provides for rehabilitation not the absorption ofthe existing employees working with the erstwhile Madhya ?radesh State Road Transport Corporation. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 06m July, 2006, be accordingly amended and the contents of para 3 of the said order be modified to the extent that “the State of Chhattisgarh is directed to consider the case ofthe petitioners for rehabilitation and deputation”. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners: non-applicant herein, would submit that the State has already taken more than three months in seeking amendment ofthe order dated 6m July, 2006. Thus, no indulgence could be shown to the authorities. 4. Be that as it may. Since the policy dated 11.03.2003 is clear and it is admitted by the learned counsel that by mistake it could not be pointed out during the course of hearing, the State of Chhattisgarh is directed as above and the State Government is further directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with their policy decision within a period of 6 weeks from today. 5. This order shall not come in the way of subsequent decision taken by the State Government to absorb employees, if so desired. In View ofthe above, this application stands disposed of. Sci/e "Satish K.Agnihotri Judge t