Disposed

Chandresh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WPS/185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner's claim for absorption of services within any Corporation/Board and pass a fresh order within 45 days, disposing of the writ petition without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to re-consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh order regarding absorption of services within any Corporation/Board within 45 days.

Chandresh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (S) No. 185 of 2024

¶4

Chandresh Sharma S/o Late Shri D.C. Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Court Road, Opposite Annapurna Lodge, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhatttisgarh),

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh),

¶9

Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Collector District Surajpur, Collector OfÏce Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh),

¶11

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Through Managing Director, C.I.D.C. Shastri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	: Shri Bhupendra Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For State	: Smt. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.5	: Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate on behalf
	of Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order On Board

25/01/2024

Heard.

Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 5^th December, 2023

¶20

(Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for his absorption of services on the ground that pursuant to the Circular of General Administrative Department (GAD) dated 31.05.2010, the absorption of the petitioner is permissible within any government department. Earlier the petitioner has preferred a writ petition being WPS No.6177 of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court on 10.11.2021 and respondent No.1,3 and 5 of that petition were directed to take appropriate decision in the matter. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order.

¶21

It is not in dispute that State Government/respondent take decision on absorption of service of the employees of CIDC/erstwhle MPSRTC who are working on deputation in different Council/department/organization. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that as contained in Circular dated 31.05.2010 of GAD, the absorption of the petitioner in not permissible in any of the government department and it would be only done within the Corporation/Board. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage would submit that as of now, he is ready to get absorption of his service in any of the Corporation/Board. Therefore, it is prayed that respondent authority may be directed to further reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh order regarding his absorption within any Corporation/Board.

¶22

The above prayer made by the Counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by Counsel for respondents/State.

¶23

In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the reasons assigned for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order, without going on merits of the case, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1 and 6 to re-consider the claim of

¶24

the petitioner and pass a fresh order regarding the absorption of the petitioner within any Corporation/Board within ‘ 45 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with the law and relevant rules/policies.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶27

Prakash

Chandresh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandresh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikant Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

J.R. Nishad Vs State of C.G.

Deendayal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushma Asha Manila Khalko Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asir Ahmad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Amarjeet Ram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh