K. L. Prasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5114 of 2017 K.L.Prasad, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Aged About 58 Years, Occupation- Service, Presently Posted as Assistant Engineer / Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Hasdeo (RBC), Sub Division No.1, Pantora, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Civil & Revenue Diatrict Janjgir-Champa. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Shihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Minimata Project, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur.

4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division Rampur, Korba.

5. Shri S.N. Sai, Assistant Engineer, Office Of Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage Water Management, Division Rampur, Korba. ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 26.09.2017 Heard 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is aged about 58 years, has various family problems, as also while he was promoted from the post of Sub-Engineer to Assistant Engineer, he was given the charges of two sites i.e. one at Pantora and another at Hasdeo Bango Barrage Water Management, Sub Division No.1 Darri. Therefore, he made a representation that looking to his various problems, he may be posted at one place i.e. at Darri and the said representation

despite being pending, the respondent No.5 is being promoted and he has also been directed to take charge of Darri. Learned counsel therefore submits that the representation which is pending may be decided, as it cannot be kept abeyance in view of the law laid down in case of Union of India & Ors. v. S.L.Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357.

2.

Considering the facts of this case, the Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner considering his grievance within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that in the meanwhile, the position of the petitioner may not be disturbed. 3.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok