il»Lt BfcNI'li IN THE HON'BLE HJGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARILAT BILASPUR (C.G.l W. P. (Sl No.^Z I I of 2011 PETITIONER Rameshwar Prasad Mahanand S/o Virendra Das Mahanand aged about 57 years, Office of the Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS , ~ \ yy^.- ^"W^AA^ /^%^1/ ..-•"".rf'" ...< ^J^ 2. ^" :1.^ State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Departraent of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3.' The Forest Conservator, Durg Circle Division Durg (C.G.) 4.-^ The Sub Divisional Officer, (Forest) Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Phool Singh Nishad, aged about 55 years, Office of the Forest Division Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Shriram Sanjiwan Rajput, aged about 56 years, Office of the Forest Division Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) t 5: 6: ^ 'l 7 \\ '^ 7. 8.- 9. 10: 11:^ /'- 12. 13. 14. ^ 15. Ganesh Prasad Soni, aged about 57 years, Office of the Forest Division Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Balgovind Dubey, aged about 56 years, Office of the Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabidhram (C.G.) Chandrika Prasad Verma, aged about 60 years, Office of fhe Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabidhram (C.G.) Ramcharan Lodhi, aged about 55 years, Office of the Forest Division Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Jiyalal Chouhan, aged about 59 years, Office of the Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Makhan Lal Venna, aged about 54 years, Office of the Forest Division Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Shashikant Albert, aged about 55 years, Office of the Forest Division Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) N.D. Khan, aged about 57 years, Office of the Forest Division Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Krishna Pratap Singh, aged about 59 years, Office of the Forest Division Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 16. Ashok Kuinar Tiwari, aged about 55 years, Office of the Forest Division Khairgarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 17. Toran Singh Bharadwaj, aged about 56 years, Office of the Forest Division Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 18. Baldau Prasad Choubey, aged about 54 years, Office of the Forest Division Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR« » (Hon. Mr. Justice Prittnker Diwaker) W.P.(S)No. 721 lof 2011 l^tjtioner Rameshww Prasad-Mahanand VERSUS Respondents State of Chhatti^arhiand othere Present: Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel fbrthe peUHfiner, :" 2" ShriChandresh Shrivastava, PLfbrthe : State/respondents No.1 to 4; ! OR D:E R •::, -• •-"--; ••»—1« - •a--*"- (08.12.2011) « The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entltled; fbr his promotion to the post of Forester from thafr®f«Foresfr Guard, ignoring his case, his juniors have been promoted. He submits that in identical case l.e. W.P.S. No.7041/2011, this^ Court has directed the State authorities to decide the pendlng representation of the said petitioner and therefore, the Identieal order may be passedin thepresent case also. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner s submits that ttie representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2010 (Ann@<ure P-»6) is pending befbre respondent No.4 and purposeof filing-oftWs petition would be served ff direction is i^ued for dedding Ns pending representation. 3. Learned counset for the State submits that at fttls staget he isnot aware as to whether the pending representation of the petitioner has been declded or not and whether the same has been received by the respondent No.4 or not and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation alor^ with the copy ofthe eariier representation and thecopy ofthjs order and in turn his repr^entation would be ctecided A accordancewith law. - ;il-:") •^ .''..: :•& ~c .%-- .^ Priya 4. The present petition lsdisp<»edefwith a directlen totte petitioner to file a fresh representatfon atong with the copy °t2tt)e earlier representation and the copy of this order and in tum, it is expeeted fl^m respondent No.4 to decide the said representation, ifalreadynotdecidedjnaccordancewithlawas expeditiously as possible preferably w'thtn a pwod (rf <M® months from the date of receipt of copy of this opder. « 5. it is made clear that thls Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthecaseand the authorftycofiGemeds would be at tiberty to deckle the representation strietly?in ? accordance with law. Pritinker Diwakar Judge