Ku.Fahmida Sheikh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.4860 of 2006 Ku. Fahmida Sheikh, D/o late Shri Sheikh Mohammad Yakub, aged about 50 years, R/o Qr. No.B-112, Near Water Tank, Kota Colony, Raipur (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2.

The Director General, Chhattisgarh Council of Science and Technology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (CG).

3.

The Executive Director, Chhattisgarh Council of Science and Technology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (CG).

4.

Union of India, through Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology Bhawan, New Mehroli Road, New Delhi.

5.

State of M.P. through the Secretary, Science and Technology Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.

6.

The Director General, MP Council of Science and Technology, Science Hills, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal.

7.

Shri Daya Sagar Kachhap, S/o Shri K. Kachhap, aged about 35 years, Chhattisgarh Council of Science and Technology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (CG). --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sen, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Mazid Ali, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/11/2017

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II on 11.08.1987, but she is being paid salary and other allowances for the post of Stenographer Grade-III for which she has made representation to the respondent authorities particularly respondent No.2, but the same has not been considered and decided till this date and, therefore, direction may be issued to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously.

(2) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(3) Be that as it may, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation, if any before the said authority. (4) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

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