← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP/854/2006disposed off

Yogendra Nath Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2018-08-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 854 of 2006 Yogendra Nath Tiwari, Aged 45 years, S/o Rajendra Nath Tiwari, R/o. Program Inspector, Near Mouvali Bandh, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4.

Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5.

Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/08/2018 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name for absorption and inclusion against the Programme Inspector has already been recommended by various authority time to time but the decision on the said recommendations is pending consideration before the State Government since fairly long time and, therefore, the same may be directed to be decided by reasoned and speaking order expeditiously by the authority concerned.

2.

Per contra, counsel for the State would submit that if the petitioner makes fresh representation along with the recommendation made by various authorities before the State Government, the same will be considered and decided strictly in accordance with, if already not decided.

3.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh representation along with recommendation made by the competent authority for absorption and inclusion against the Programme Inspector before the State Government within a period of two weeks from today, that will be considered and decided by the State Authorities within a period of six weeks from the receipt thereof.

5.

The interim order, granted on 1.3.2006, shall remain in operation for a period of 10 weeks enabling the State Government to take decision on the petitioner's representation. 6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-