High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4904/2019disposed off

Suresh Prasad Tripathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-07-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4904 of 2019 Suresh Prasad Tripathi S/o Late B. P. Tripathi, Aged About 57 Years Working As Sub Inspector ( Telecom ) Bhilai Zone Unit, Police Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police , Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Regional Police ( Telecommunication ) Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/07/2019

1. The limited prayer that the petitioner has made in the present writ petition is for a direction to respondents to consider the representation that the petitioner has made so far as non granting of the allowances that the petitioner is entitled for on the post of Sub Inspector for the period between 13.04.2012 to 03.10.2014.

2. According to the petitioner, he has infact physically worked during the said period as an Assistant Sub Inspector. Though, he was entitled for promotion and the department has granted him the promotion from back date i.e. from 13.04.2012 onwards. Therefore, the

allowance ought to have been calculated at par with the allowances that were payable to a Sub Inspector during the relevant period.

3. Given the nature of dispute that the petitioner has raised in Annexure P-1 representation, this Court is of the opinion, let this aspect be also considered by respondent No. 2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No. 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit