IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. ?L] if OF 2011 / PETITIONER : Bhairav Prasad Tiwari, son of Late Shiv Shankar Tiwari, aged about 52 years, working on the post of Forest-Guard, resident of Forest Division Office, Katghora, Tehsii- Katghora, District— Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS: 1.) State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2) ’/Conservator of Forest, Biiaspur Circie, Biiaspur, 'D‘istrict- Biiaspur (C.G.) 3) /Eivisional Forest Officer, Katghora, Forest Division, Katghora, District— Korba (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WW;W,W . Army/wwggoo mm ..... MW (W) WWW mmm WW#WW , %a1fattm SB : Hog’bie Shri Manindrai‘ Mohan Shrivastava, J. _ 9. 12.20 1 1 Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, .Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition, is that the petitioxier, having been regularized on the post vide order dated 15.12.1999 (Armexure P—3), has not been granted“ proper seniority with eifect from the date of his appointment as daily wage employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order, dated 15.12.1999, the petitLoner was given'regular appointment on the post. Thereafter, a gradation list was issued in which the petitioner has been granted seniority w.e.f. 16. 12.1999, whereas; the petitioner was entitled to 3e given seniority w.e.f. 1.12.1979. He further submits that though representation has been made, the same has not been considered by the Divisional Forest Officer. It appears that the p titioner in his representation has been claim ing' seniority with etfec V from the date of his initial appointment, though the stipulation in e order of regularization shows that he has been granted seniority ith eifect from the date ofjoining. WWW . )H-HC 78 mmw mmm WW f§QTW 1 $3imm Praveen Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner may be considered by respondent No.3 in accordance with law. The petitioner shall respondent No.3, who shal puter limit of 3 months. With the aforesaid Qb§ of. ' . . It is made clear, that1 on the merits of the claim of prefer detailed representation before _ take decision in the matter Within an ‘ervations, the petition is finally disposed his court has HO'C CXpressed any opinion The petitioner; i7 i sw— I Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ‘ ‘ m m.....................‘.«..m..................fu“ 200 aimm (Wu)