H.P.Beohar Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited And Ors.

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 16:54:55 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:53647

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1346 of 2014

¶7

H.P.Beohar S/o Lt Shri Shyam Bihari Verma Aged About 62 Years Retd Personnel Manager, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, R/o A-5, Shankar Nagar Colony, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited And Ors. S/o Through Its Managing Director, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3. Regional Manager C.G. Infrastructure Devel. Corpt. Ltd. Regional Office, Aamanaka, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4. Commissioner C.G. Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5. Executive Engineer C.G. Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6. State Of C.G. Thru Secrty., Deptt. Of Transport, Manahadi Mantrly., Naya Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.

¶18

2

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶20

3-11-2025

¶21

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶22

i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 17/5/2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2/Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.

¶23

ii. That, the respondent CIDC may kindly be directed to reconsider the application dated 26/11/2011 of the petitioner on the basis of observation made by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 2180/2012;further considering the fact that similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit of granting of NOC; and to take initiative for sale and execute the sale deed of the house/quarter No. A-5 Sector-1 in which the petitioner is residing since 1999 i.e. about one & half decade, which has been alloted to him.

¶24

iii. Cost of the petitioner may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶25

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶26

2) Facts of the present case are that initially, petitioner was appointed to the post of Depot Manager under Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) on 4.10.1976. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Divisional Manager and transferred to Seoni Division and again transferred to Raipur Division on 20.5.1999. In the year 1999, petitioner was allotted Quarter No. A-5 at Housing Board Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur.

¶27

3

¶28

On 11.9.2002, MPSRTC floated a scheme by taking a decision that the employees who are residing in the housing colony of the Housing Board will be given preference at the time of sale of the house/ quarter by the Housing Board. In the year 2003, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) floated a scheme for voluntary retirement by providing the condition that the employees who are willing to purchase their respective allotted quarters of Housing Board can be compensated from the amount of voluntary retirement of the employee. Petitioner retired from the services in July, 2012. No objection certificates were issued by the Divisional Manager, CIDC in favor of Yogendra Soni, Bhuwanlal Yadav, Mahendra Sharma and Tarun Singh to purchase the quarters in which they were residing but NOC was not issued in favor of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, he preferred WPC/2180/2012 and vide order dated 5.2.2013, direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.5.2013 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that no such scheme is in existence.

¶29

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as NOC as well as benefit of the scheme have been extended to the similarly situated persons. She prays that order dated 17.5.2013 may be set aside.

¶30

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that representation made by the petitioner pursuant to order passed in

¶31

4

¶32

WPC/2180/2012 has been rejected vide order dated 17.5.2013 on the ground that at the relevant time, no such scheme was in existence. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

6) A perusal of the record would show that petitioner was initially an employee of MPSRTC and he was later posted under CIDC at Raipur after formation of State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 2003, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) floated a scheme for voluntary retirement by providing the condition that the employees who are willing to purchase their respective allotted quarters of Housing Board can be compensated from the amount of voluntary retirement of the employee. After retiring in July, 2012, petitioner applied for NOC from the respondent-Corporation and showed his intention to purchase the quarter which was allotted to him but no action was taken, therefore petitioner filed WPC/2180/2012 which was disposed vide order dated 5.2.2013. Pursuant to order passed in writ petition, petitioner made a representation which was rejected vide order dated 17.5.2013 on the ground that there is no such scheme in existence.

¶35

7) Undisputedly, petitioner was an employee of MPSRTC and thereafter, his services were absorbed by CIDC, therefore petitioner would get benefit of all schemes floated by CIDC from

¶36

5

¶37

time to time, specifically when similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of such scheme.

¶38

8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the order impugned dated 17.5.2013 is bad in law and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this petition is hereby being disposed directing respondent authorities to re-consider the claim of petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.

¶39

9) It is expected that the authority concerned shall consider all the circulars/schemes floated by the CIDC while entertaining the fresh representation made by the petitioner and make all endeavors to decide the same within period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶42

A j i n k y a

H.P.Beohar v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.P.Beohar v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Ram Verma Vs Prahalad Janghel

Parmeshwar Patel Vs Prahalad Janghel

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhram Chouhan

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Neelima Mishra

Subodh Mishra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Ambast Vs State Of Chhattisgarh