Ram Dayal Dhruw Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.20 12:45:11 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:6283

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 968 of 2025

¶7

1 - Ram Dayal Dhruw S/o Bhanjan Dhruw Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Daihan Chowk Near Talab, Sirgitti (Np), Distt.- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

2 - Vinod Kumar Tripathi S/o Omkarnath Tripathi Aged About 58 Years R/o 489, Gandhi Nagar, Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh

¶9

3 - Ranu Thakur W/o Hrishna Gopal Singh Thakur, D/o Late Durga Singh Thakur Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 03, Ward No. 15, Khairagarh, Chihaldah, Pandadah, Distt.- Khairagarh-ChhuikhadanGandai (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Old Phq Premises, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

2 - Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

2

Order on Board

04/02/2025

Heard Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for respondent/s.

¶22

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to properly compute the statutory interest on the amount impounded in the EDF components known in the jargon of the Corporation as 23%, 34% and 17% of DA to be calculated in the manner prescribed for General Provident Fund Accounts..

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the case of the petitioners as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court dated 16/07/2012 in WA No. 419/2011, as the case of the petitioners is similar and identical.

¶25

10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners.

¶26

10.4 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.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1

¶28

and 2 are retired/superannuated from the erstwhile Bilaspur and/or Raipur Division of the erstwhile MPSRTC. That, the status of the petitioner no.3 is that he is the legal heirs of the deceased namely Durga Singh Thakur who was also employee of erstwhile MPSRTC and is the entitled for benefits. Both the respondents are

¶29

3

¶30

in control of and look after the Parivahan Prabhag/Grih Parivahan of the State Government and the CIDC is a nodal agency which was incorporated for the rehabilitation of the employees of MPSRTC as the State of Chhattisgarh took a decision to seize to function Road Transport Corporation. It was the peremptory duty cast upon the respondents to pay the statutory interest towards the amount of 23% DA impounded in the EDF scheme from 01.07.1995 to 30.06.1996, 34% DA impounded from 01.07.1996 to 31.03.1999 and 17% DA impounded from 01.04.1999 onwards. However, despite sincere efforts made by the employees for getting the said benefit no action has been taken by the authorities, therefore, writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which were allowed and even the writ appeals and the SLP were decided in favour of the employees. Some of the employees approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petitions and in an identical issue came up before the Coordinate Bench on 15.11.2017 and the same has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and it was further directed that respondent No.2 shall on receipt the representation take a prompt decision. He further submits that present writ petition also may be disposed of in similar terms as the grievance raised by the petitioners is identical.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has denied the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He

¶32

4

¶33

further submits that the amount which the petitioners are claiming, they have already given to some of the petitioners, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the prayer made by the petitioners to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in similar terms as has been passed in the WPS No. 6005/2017 vide order dated 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to move a representation before the respondent No.2, before whom the claim of the previous set of petitions were under process.

¶35

On submission of the representation by the petitioners, the respondents shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months shall verify and if the case of the petitioners are similarly to the previous set of petitions or the petitioners in the case of WPS No. 6005/2017, their claim shall also be processed along with the similarly placed persons, whose writ petitions have already been decided vide orders dated 04.07.2011 and 16.12.2012 in WPS No. 6510/2009 and WA No. 419/2011.

¶36

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶37

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶38

Ravi Mandavi

Ram Dayal Dhruw v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dayal Dhruw v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saj Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiwnandan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarun Kumar Patel Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rasid Mohammed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttara Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh