Manoj v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1185 of 2017 Manoj S/o Shri Abhimanyu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Office Sihma, Police Station And Tahsil Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, State- Haryana, Haryana ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department Of Home/C.I.S.F. Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi

2. Director General Of Police Dgp, Central Industrial Security Force C.I.S.F. Headquarter, Block-13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Raod, New Delhi Pin 110003,

3. Inspector General Of Police (IGP), West Block Officer, Central Industrial Security Force C.I.S.F., Kharghar, New Mumbai-10,

4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (DIG), Office Of Central Industrial Security Force C.I.S.F. 3rd Battalion Utai, NSPCL, Bhilai, Police Station- Utai, District- Durg, CG

5. Senior Commandant Office Of Central Industrial Security Force C.I.S.F. 3rd Battalion Utai, NSPCL, Bhilai, Police Station Utai, District Durg, CG

6. Assistant/deputy Commandant Office Of Central Industrial Security Force C.I.S.F. 3rd Battalion Utai, Nspcl, Bhiali, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent/State Mr. R. K. Gupta, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 26-71. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking reliefs to quash the impugned order Annexures P-1 and P-11 and reinstate him and give compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/-.

2. The petitioner is a terminated constable. Earlier he was posted at Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai, Distt. Durg.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Annexure R1, the case of the petitioner is still pending with the Scrutiny

Committee for decision. Thus, this writ petition may be disposed of giving the direction to respondent No. 2 to decide his case within stipulated time.

4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondent No. 2 shall decide the petitioner's case expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order according to law and procedure in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh -v- Union of India and others [(2016) 8 SCC 471].

5. It is made clear that this court has not touched the merit of the case.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Pathak