Vijay Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4528 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Mahavir Prasad Shrivastava, Aged About 59 Years, Working As Head Constable (DCB) At Police Superintendent Of Railway Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Police, Government Railway Police Raipur, District Raipur. Chhattisgarh

4. Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Rail) Government Railway Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 25.11.2020

1. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondents in not carrying out the necessary correction in the Service Book so far as the name of the

petitioner is concerned.

2. According to the petitioner, in every other documents except for the Service Book, the name of the petitioner has been reflected as "Vijay Kumar Shrivastava" whereas inadvertently in the Service Book it has been recorded as "Vijay Bahadur Shrivastava" for which the petitioner has repeatedly been approaching the authorities for necessary correction which till date has not materialized. He prays for a suitable direction to the respondents for correction of the name of the petitioner to that extent.

3. Taking into consideration the limited relief that the petitioner has sought for, let the petitioner approach the respondents 2 & 3 by way of a detailed representation in this regard along with all supporting documents and the respondents 2 & 3 in turn shall take an appropriate decision on the said representation of the petitioner in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the records and other documents which the petitioner shall produce. Considering the short tenure of service left for the petitioner to superannuate, it is expected that the respondents 2 & 3 shall take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date the petitioner makes a fresh representation.

4. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai