High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7654/2019disposed off

Vimal Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7654 of 2019 Vimal Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Pandey Aged About 39 Years R/o Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward No. 38, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary Department Of Home Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Director General Home Guards, Civil Defence, Fire And Emergency Services And State Disaster Response Force, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Director Directorate, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhavan, Fourth Floor, D- Block, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

7. District Commandant Home Guards, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/09/2019

1. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for is for an appropriate direction to the respondents No. 6 & 7 for deciding the representation that the petitioner has made so far as the services of the petitioner being sent on deputation from the office of respondent No.6 to the office of respondent No.7 without taking any consent from the petitioner as such.

-22. The said representation was made as early as on 16.04.2019 and since then it is still pending inspite of reminders being sent by the petitioner.

3. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the respondents No.6 as well as the respondent No.7 consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in terms of the rules and regulations governing the field at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

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

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved