wi" “w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P. No.4330 of 2004 zYasin Sajid Khan, S/o, Md. aseem, aged about 54 years, Secretary Krishi é Upaj Mandi Samiti Lormi District — @A B11aspur (C G) Res1dent of Rajendra PETITIONER Mq/g M ' m'rg‘é’w ”N agar Bllaspur 1‘ 'a e, w‘H VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) Director, Madhya Pradesh, State of Agriculture Vipadan Board Bhopal (M.P.) Director, Chhattisgarh State, Agriculture Vipadari Board, Raipur (C.G.) WRITIPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 8a 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA “: N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4990 of 2004 PETITIONER : 'Yasin Sajid Khan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :Director, Madhva Pradesh State Agriculture Vipadau Board & mother. WRIT PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Si)“: H0n’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Smjay K. Agrawal, Aaivocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri R.S.Marhas, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. (Passed on .i DER RA§J “5 dayof Apiil, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on atiocation, was sent to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, and working as an employee ofChhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnana Board when the impugned order ofstoppage ofone increment without cumulative etfect was passed by the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnana Board, on 2 .112003 (Annexure P/l). Smt. Siddique further submits that the order itselfis void ab initio as when the order was passed: the petitioner Was no ionger the employee ofthe respondent No. 1. Smt. Siddique further Submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 27.11.2303 (Annexure P/l) has made a representation to the respondent No. 1. However, the same has not been considered and decided ‘ till date. She further prays that the aforesaid representation may be treated as an appeal and the same may be considered and decided by the respondent No. 2. Shri R.S.Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner may tile a fresh appeal before the respondent No. 2 which shall he considered and decided in accordance with law. In View ofthe foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 that in the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks from today. the same may be considered and decided within a further period of" four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofthe appeal. The limitation shall not come in way of entertaining and consideration ofthe appeal, if any. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge OR 0