Philmon Toppo v. Vikash Sheel

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 73 of 2018 Philmon Toppo S/o Late Shri Simion Toppo Aged About 58 Years R/o Police Line Campus, Patharia, Tahsil And Police Station Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Vikash Sheel Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. B.V.R.Subramanyam Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Amarnath Upadhyay Director General Of Police (D.G.P.)/chairman, Scrutiny Committee, Police Headquarters (Phq), Sector-19, Block No.3, Near Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Sanjay Pilley Additional Director General Of Police, (A.D.G.P.), Administration, Police Headquarters (Phq), Sector-19, Block No.3, Near Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Deepanshu Kabraa Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.), Behind Nagar Nigam Office, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. Neethu Kamal Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (SP), Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Contemnors), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board

-208/03/2018 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the State, upon instructions received from the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, submits that the petitioner has been allowed to work and an affidavit to this effect has also been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has been allowed to work but for 30 days from the date of interim order, he was not allowed to work.

3. Be that as it may, the interim order will have the effect of continuity in service and the petitioner shall be deemed to continue in service under the interim order.

4. With the said observation, the petition is disposed off. Sd/-- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen