Garjan Singh Bareth vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice , Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Listed On:
3 Dec 2015
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 614 of 2015
Ramayan Prasad Rajwade S/o Shri Vishal Prasad, aged about 46 years, R/o Kanki, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
-
- State of Chhattisgarh through the Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage Water Resources Division Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
-
- Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo RBC Water Resource Sub Division No. 1, Pantora, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 615 of 2015
Garjan Singh Bareth S/o Bhukhuram Bareth, aged about 45 years, R/o village Kapan, P.S. and Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
-
- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
-
- The Research Officer, Quality Control Unit, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
-
- The Labour Court, Janjgir-Champa District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.
Judgment on Board
Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice
03/12/2015
1. These two appeals arise from common order dated 14.10.2015 passed in Writ
Petition (L) No. 53 of 2012 and analogous cases.
2. The Learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the award for reinstatement holding the retrenchment to be bad but confined relief only to those who may have worked for 10 years or more. The award was modified by grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement for those who had worked for less than 10 years. The issue has been
considered in Writ Appeal No. 568 of 2015 and analogous appeals disposed on 27.11.2015.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the issues being common, the present appeals may also be disposed in terms of the order dated 27.11.2015. The only difference in the present cases is that the Appellants after the award have been reinstated between the years 2011-2014.
4. Learned Counsel for the State is not in a position to distinguish present cases from the order dated 27.11.2015.
5. The appeals are therefore disposed in similar terms as ordered on 27.11.2015 in Writ Appeal No. 568 of 2015 and analogous appeals.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit