Dr. Nidhi Rawat v. State Of Chhattisgarh

AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4295 of 2018 • Dr. Nidhi Rawat D/o Late Shri H.K. Rawat, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ritz - 17, Ganpati Vihar, Potiya Road, Durg, District Durg CG ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture And Veterinary Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur CG

2. Director, Agriculture And Veterinary Health Services, Raipur, District Raipur CG

3. Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Through Registrar, Anjora, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Dean, College Of Veterinary Science, Anjora, Durg, District Durg CG

5. Dr. R.K. Baghel, Assistant Professor, Veterinary Paracytology Veterinary And Animal Husbandry College, Anjora, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

6. Dr. Savita Bisen, Assistant Professor, Veterinary Paracytology Veterinary And Aminal Husbandry College, Anjora, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

7. Dr. Meenu Kashyap, Professor, Pashupalan, Anjora, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For the Petitioner :

Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the State/Res. No.1 & 2 :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /07/2018

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to direct the respondents No. 3 & 4 to give the benefit of salary increment from the date of her joining and looking to her seniority, whatever the benefit of salary

increment has already been given to the person who had joined after giving joining of the petitioner.

3. Earlier petitioner was posted as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in Veterinary Department, State of Chhattisgarh, thereafter she got appointment as Assistant Professor in Kamdhenu University, Anjora, District Durg after obtaining the NOC and resign the earlier service.

4. Counsel for the petitioner urged that she does not press for any relief except her representation which had been received by the respondent No. 3 on 16/03/2017 may be decided by the respondent No. 3 within stipulated time.

5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with this direction that if aforesaid representation has not been decided and still pending then the respondent No. 3 shall decide it within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, according to the law and procedure.

6. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Pathak