Anurag Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4853 of 2021 Anurag Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhupendra Chandra Gupta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bazarpara, Amit Readymade Store Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Land Record, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block No. 2, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State :

Ms. Abhyunati Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/09/2021 1.

The limited grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-confirmation of petitioner after having successfully completed the period of probation.

2.

According to the petitioner, he was appointed vide order dated 05.10.2018 and that at the time of appointment the services of petitioner were placed under probation for a period 2 years. The said period of 2 years stands completed in October, 2020. According to the petitioner, meanwhile the petitioner has also cleared all the written examinations required for a Patwari to have passed for being confirmed in the services.

3.

The further contention of petitioner is that the Department meanwhile have already confirmed the services of many other identically placed persons who were appointed along with the petitioner but the claim of petitioner for some reasons has been left out. 4.

Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate, at this juncture submits that the limited prayer that he makes as of now is for an appropriate direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to consider conforming the services of petitioner at the earliest at par with the similarly placed persons who were appointed along with the petitioner, who have been confirmed in service vide Annexure P/5 and other orders of similar nature confirming the services of similarly placed other personnel. Let the respondents 2 & 3 therefore take an appropriate decision on the claim of petitioner regarding his confirmation in service keeping in view the confirmation which has been extended to the persons who were appointed along with the petitioner, at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai