Jagdish Ram Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3683 of 2016 • Jagdish Ram Sinha S/o Shri Chaitram Sinha, Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Paricharak At Central Semen Museum, Anjora, District Durg : R/o Sharda Chowk, Ward No. 10, Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon, P. S. Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Director, Veterinary Services, Opposite Guru Teg Bahadur, Udhyan G.E. Road, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)

3. The Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

4. Mahaveer Patel, Presently Posted As Assistant Filed Officer At Veterinary Hospital Musara Block Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

5. Shyamlal Chaturvedani, Presently Posted As Assistant Filed Officer At Veterinary Hospital Bagur Block Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Waqqar Naiyer, Advocate For State Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy Order On Board 22.06.2017

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the gradation list for the post of Paricharak has been published in the year 01.04.2014 but the petitioners' name have not been entered in the said gradation list. He further submits that the matter is similar to one which has been already decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court i.e. order dated 17.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 815 of 2017. He prays that similar order may also be passed

in the present case.

2. The learned State Counsel after verification of the fact does not dispute that the present matter is also identical and can be disposed in similar terms and condition.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file representation before the respondents No.2 & 3. If such representation is made by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the said authorities shall consider and decide the same on its own merit and in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with representation of the petitioner.

4. If the petitioner's grievance is not redressed, he will be at liberty to revive his petition.

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. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE kishore