@g%§ma wv wf“f:’¢"‘n.§ C; @ Ogw‘o; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARIil w.P. (S) No. (R25 [2010 PETITIONER : /" Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Bunnu Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o. Mukam 8r, Post — Sokra, Tahsil — Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /' (1) State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /(2) Divisional Forest Officer, Forest i: Division (Samanya), Dhamtari, gHM IS ”skin“ ski Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (3) Depot Officer, office of Depot Officer (forest), Dhamtari (C.G.) Nagri, Distt. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ i‘ / I T.n m N:.€..:.L$>l..9€.g"q 2 & mm Wm WW mmmm WWW %@IW %W 311% 3.3.: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. PRlTl’NKER DIWAKER 99 12 2910 Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, RL. for the skate. Grievance of the petiiioner in the present petition is that though he is entitled for his re " tion on the post of Forest Guard, he has been regularized on e post ofwatchman. Counsel for the petitioner su mits that the respondents have completed all the formalities f0 passing necessary oréer in favour of the petitioner and therefo- at this stage the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the resent petition with hberty to file a fresh representation befor respondent No.2 anti the same may be directed to be decide in accordance with iaw as expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the State submit that without ascertaining he fact he cannot make any st' tement Whether the State Government is willing to regularize e services of the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard or not. However: he has no objection if the petitioner makes representation befom the authority concerned and the s e is decided by it in accordance with layy- V r Accordingly, the petition is isposed of with a direction that in the event of any represen tion filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 raising h s grievances, the same is i expected to be dccided by thé: authon'ty concamcd in accordance wi’rh 1aw as expeditious as possible. It is made clcar that. this C urt has not expmssed any opinion on merits of the case d tha authority concerned would be at libexty to decide the re resentation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. SdL 7’ ’ Pritinker Diwaker Judge