High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/2466/2005withdrawn

P.M.Shukla v. Union Of India And Another

2014-12-24Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice3 pages

This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.

^F /^>/ N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0:2-4<6 /2005. ^j^J) P. M. Shukla, S/o Shri P. N. Shukla, PETITIONER aged about 53 years, R/o, 106-A, H.

Colony, Ruabandha Sector, P. O. Bhilai, Distt. Durg, (C.G.) (Ex -employee of H.S.C.L., P.

No.

^^ / x<3/ '?

/'5\W / ^f^Ty'

^^ ^" ^' / y^y ^'

18951, Designation: Crane Operation)

VERSUS

1) Union of India, Through : Secretary, Ministry of Iron and Steel, Parliament House, New Delhi.

• ^' 2) Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.

(A Public Sector Enterprise), through its Chairman - Cum - Managing 1» Director, Kolkata.

3) Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.

(Local Unit at Bhilai ) through General Manager, P, O.

Bhilai, Distt.

c^^ ^ Durg (C.G.) ^v^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF :)t >"'IJ'L( •ar?;:<l •1:i. ' S^^QMmmm, ^^^•^ CERTIORARI / •»S8?"

CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER WRIT/DIRECTION / ORDER.

M i^^ •i'^T^'

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUfi SB:HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No.2466 of2005 P.M. Shukla PETITIQNER

Versus

Union of India and others Writ Petition NoJ146tf)£ •R.B. Nayak f'ETITIQNER 7-4^^'.'S^~sfc^iL l',Usfi-flakfrSiWl Union of India and others ^w^n-~:'ii:MErttieti(Kl>n No.2468 of 2005 'i-ic^^q uRIrT Prayag Choubey PETITIQ^NER

Versus

Union of India and others Writ Petition No.4730 of 2005 PETITLOMER Sukaloo Ram

Versus

Union of India and others

^ And Writ Petition No.4839 of 2005 PETITIONER NiazAli

Versus

Union of India and others WRIT PETITIONS UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearanca is: fg jlli •I11 M ,..<iS|)ri1kJ®fn'Pandey, Advocate for'ffT8,Pej|G@ngrs. ..lii.lRI'fri N.K. Vyas, Assistant Solicitor GeneW!,jKByffijon pf India. g;|g''a°Shri Vinod DeshmLikbnAdvocate for ResponSgO&gi;,,, NAVIN SINHA, ACTIN©JfeUJ 1.

Heard LeameB.iifoiansellllfor the Petitioners and the Respondents.

^KV^ uTOt 2.

At the outset leave is sought to withdraw the applications. 3.

The writ applications are dismissed as withdrawn Sd//.

ActingChiefJustice sunita