Anil Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

+NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 443 of 2021 Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Police Inspector, Thana - Tarlaguda, District Bijapur (C.G.), Permanent R/o Near Pathak Hospital Gali, Daga Building, Fafadih, Raipur, District Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary - Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2.

Director General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3.

Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4.

Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Administration) Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5.

Assistant Inspector General Of Police (Administration) Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6.

Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7.

Superintendent Of Police Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/02/2021 1.

The counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the writ petition at this juncture permitting him to make a representation to the respondents in respect of his grievance of granting promotion from the date his immediate juniors were granted in the year 2013. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he intends to file a representation in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in WPS No. 1559/2012 decided on 04.07.2019.

3.

The State counsel submits that on the petitioner making a suitable representation, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 4.

Given the said fact, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the respondents No.2 to 5 within a period of two weeks and on such representation being made, the respondents No.2 to 5 shall decide the same in accordance with its own merits and the Rules governing the field at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

5.

The claim of the petitioner is not confined for the promotional benefit that he is seeking, but would also be in respect of the consequential benefits for the intervening period that the petitioner was put to suffer on account of the punishment order, which subsequently stood quashed by the High Court.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved