Johan Chourasia v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 7321 of 2018 • Johan Chourasia S/o Shri Phoolcharan Chourasia Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mudhpar, Post-Kapan, Tahsil-Akaltara, Police Station-Naila, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrh

2. Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarter (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Additional Director General Of Police (A-D.G.P.), Chhattisgarh Armed Force (C.A.F.) Police Headquarter (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A-I.G.P.), Chhattisgarh Armed Force (C.A.F.) Police Headquarter (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Commandant 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgah Armed Force (C.A.F.), Sakri, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgrh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Abhishek Pandey and Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates For Respondent/State :

Shri Ratan Pusty, Dy. GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 02/11/2018

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working under the respondent as Constable. Thereafter, after obtaining the I.T.I., he was absorbed as a Technician in the workshop of the respondent/police i.e. M.T.

Workshop at Bilaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was working there since 2013-2018, thereafter, all of a sudden his absorption was annulled. He would further submit that the petitioner may be allowed to make a representation before respondent No.2 to decide the grievance of the petitioner, so that he may be absorbed again.

3. Considering the limited prayer made, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall make a representation, before the respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today and on such representation being made, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu