Nishant Kumar Tekam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.812 of 2017 Nishant Kumar Tekam S/o Bhanu Singh Tekam, Aged About 42 Years Assistant Sub Inspector ( M), Bijapur ( Bastar), Cast Scheduled Tribes, R/o Police Lines, Thana Police Lines, Tahsil Bijapur, Distt Bijapur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director General Of Police, ( D G P), Police Headquarter ( P H Q), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Additional Director General Of Police ( A D G P) Training, Police Head Quarter ( P H Q), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Inspector General Of Police, ( I G P), Office Of Inspector General Of Police, ( I G P) Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Superintendent Of Police, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

6. Shivanand Nand, S/o Gunnidhi Nand, Aged About 43 Years Sub Inspector, Narayanpur, R/o Narayanpur, Distt Narayanapur, (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/02/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

respondent No.6 namely Shivanand has promoted on the post of Sub Inspector (M) whereas, the petitioner's case for his promotion has not been considered and decided till now though he has made several representations before the respondent authorities and, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(4) Be that as it may, respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to consider and take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner with regard to his promotion in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

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

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-