I §€M?.LE’ §%Qi§ N THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. WRITPETIHON s No.$'110J OF 2011 I” /u Balram Prasad Jaiswal 5/0. Shm’ Dhanimm Jaiswal, aged abouf 56 years, occupation — Service, Posted as Peon aT Janpad panchayat Kata, R/o. Dhourabha'rha, Ward No. 15 Kargi Road Kofa, Distt— Bilaspur (6.6.) PETITIONER: VERSUS ESPONDENTs 1f” The sme of Chhmisgarh, Through ‘rhe Secretary Panchayaf and Rum! Developmen‘r Departmen‘r D. K. 5. Building Raipur , Disff: Raipur- ( CG.) 2. COHecTor, Bilaspur, Disff: Bilaspur‘ ( CG.) 3 Chief Executive officer, Districf Panchayaf Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur ( CG.) 4./Chief Execu’rive officer, Janpad Panchayai‘ Kofa, Disf‘r: Bilaspur ( C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. R K @ HIGH 00m OF CHHA‘I‘TISGARH AT Bll$RPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRI'I‘INKER DIWAKER w.p.gs}.no. 540112011 PETITIONER Baham Pmsad Jaiswal State of C.G. & Others Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. 'WRIT‘PETITIOH UNDER WHOLE 226 OF THE OONSTITUTIOH OF INDIA ORDER (14.09.2011) Gricvance of the petitioner in the pmsent petition is that on 22.2.93 he was placed under suspension on account of his anest in Crime No. 271/92. Further contention of the peiitioner is that vide judgment and oxder dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P]4) passed by this Court, the petitioner has been acquitted but even then the resp. No.2 has not passed any order for his reinstatement. Shri Sahu, counsel for the petin‘oner submits that the purpose of ming this peu‘tion wouit‘l be served if direction is issued to the reap. No.2 to consider the pending representation of the petitioner. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a nesh representation to the tesp. No.2 and in tum the same would be decided by the said authority in accordance with law. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to hie representation within a weelc nom today and in'turn the same would be decided by the resp. No.2 in a further perbd of one month. It is made clear that this court has not expresed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. Sdl- \, Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge L