/^ .^•^~ \ €3-Q- ^INRi F BFNRI' fl.?'^^S,=.'is> &^Sl.4.K'S^£ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5>6'6> OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ y .o^y/ ^<<f/ ^w^' v/y--^ .-"^ ^' c,' ^.l ^ y < ^" ^ Idrish Siddiqui Son of Late Shri Rahamatullah Siddiqui, aged about 50 years, presently posted as Junior Assistant, State Civil Supply . Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2.< The Managing Director, C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur (C.G.). /3. The District Manager, C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. The District Manager, C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Priya lon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P.(S)No. 969 of 2011 Idrish Siddqui VERSU.S State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri VK. Pandey, counse! for the petitio'ner. Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Sameer Behar counsel for respondents No.2 to Shri Pandey submits thaf without passing any order, the respondents No.2 to 4 are making recovery of Rs.4,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. He further submlts that the petitioner has already filed a representation (Annexure P-4) and purpose of fiiing of this petition wouid be served if a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 for deciding the sa'd representation. 2. Shri Behar, leamed counsei f"r the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the representation of the petitioner would be decided by respondent No.2, if already not decided. 3. Looking to the submission of Shri Behar, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, if already not decided, as expeditiously as possible preferab!y within a period "f seven weeks from today. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any oplnion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty.to decide the same strict.ly In accordance with law. SA^va^ ^w^"