Prem Dan Yeshon v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3509 of 2015 Prem Dan Yeshon S/o Shri Yunas Yeshon, Aged About 57 Years R/o Qtr. No. H/ 117, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Raipur ( P O & District ) Chhattisgarh State Pin No. 492001. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur District Chhattisgarh State Pin 492001

2. The Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Raipur (P O & Distt.), Chhattisgarh State. Pin 492001

3. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Civil Lines, Raipur, Raipur (P O & Distt.), Chhattisgarh State, Pin 492001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri K.R.Nair, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri Prasun Bhaduri, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 30/09/2015 1.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for grant of increment immediately on completion of one year from the initial date of appointment to him as has been granted to other similarly placed persons. 2.

Contention of the petitioner is that the State government has granted similar benefit immediately after completion of one year service to other persons and as the petitioner is similarly placed he is also entitled for the same relief but for some reasons the State government has not taken any positive decision in respect of the petitioner. He further submits that number of identical matters have been disposed of by this Court permitting similarly placed petitioners to file representation and directing the State to decide the same.

3.

Counsel appearing for the State makes a fair submission that the

State shall look into the case of the petitioner and the persons in whose favour orders have already been passed. He further submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 detailing his claim and in turn appropriate orders would be passed. 4.

Considering the submission made by the State counsel, let the petitioner file a detailed representation before the respondent No.2 along with all the documents and the copy of this order and in turn respondent No.2 is expected to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the service of copy of this order.

5.

With the aforesaid observation the petition stand disposed of. 6.

No observation on the merits of the case has been made by this Court and it would be for the authority concerned to act strictly in accordance with law.

Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge suguna