Prakash Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 August, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Prakash Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 August, 2025

                                                    1




                                                                                  NAFR

SMT                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NIRMALA
RAO

                                       WPS No. 6064 of 2021


          1 - Prakash Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Mathura Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 58
          Years Working As Assistant Revenue Inspector And Posted At Nagar Panchayat
          Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ... Petitioner(s)


                                                 versus


          1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural
          Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur
          Chhattisgarh


          2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Naya Raipur,
          District                             Raipur                          Chhattisgarh


          3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infra Structute Development Corporation,
          Raipur,               District                  Raipur               Chhattisgarh


          4 - Chief Medical Officer Nagar Panchayat Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi
          Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Barun Kumar Chakraborty,
Advocate holding the brief of Shri Ajay
Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent/ State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl.A.G.
For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate.
2

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
14.08.2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was

working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C. However, after the creation of the State

of Chhattisgarh, a separate Road Transport Corporation was not constituted

in the State. Therefore, his services were placed under the control of

respondent/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short

‘C.I.D.C.’). He would further submit that the State Government has issued

several circulars for the absorption of employees working with the erstwhile

M.P.S.R.T.C into various Corporation/Mandals within the State of

Chhattisgarh and pursuant to this policy, the services of several employees

were absorbed.

2. Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioner

would confine his prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to take

a decision on the representation pending before the said authority. He

restricts his prayer in view of the orders passed by this Court in the matters of

O.P. Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 1, Abdul Hakim Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & others2, Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

& others3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh &

others4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh &

others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of

Chhattisgarh & others6.

1 WP (S) No.5521/2010
2 WP (S) No.473/2013
3 WP (S) No.476/2013
4 WP (S) No.1220/2013
5 WP (S) No.1458/2013
6 WP (S) No.2128/2013
3

3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, in

the event, the petitioner submits a fresh representation before the competent

authority within a period of four weeks, the said authority shall consider and

decide petitioner’s representation in an objective manner, keeping in view the

circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, as well as the

orders of absorption passed with respect to the similarly placed employees,

as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date

of submission of the representation.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of

the case, and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter on its own

merits, strictly in accordance with law.

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi