← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1161/2018disposed off

Narendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-02-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1161 of 2018 Narendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Dukhuwa Ram Jaiswal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Palgada, Post Sarwani, Police Station Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Union Of India, Through The Under Secretary Department Of Panchayat, Government Of India, Ministry Of Agriculture, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi.

3. The Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Director Pradhanmantry Aawash Yojna, (Gramin) Vikas Ayukta Office, Chhattisgarh New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 :

Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 0602/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would submit that petitioner has made a representation on 30.08.2017 (Annexure - P/1) before respondent No. 1 for absorption on the post of Prashikshan Samanvayak but it has not been considered and decided till date, therefore, directions may be issued to the respondent No. 01 to consider and decide the same expeditiously.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Prayer is fair and reasonable and is allowed. 4.

Be that as it may, the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for absorption on the post of Prashikshan Samanvayak expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file additional representation, if any, before the respondent authority.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka