i^ IN THE' HIGH COURT OF JU'DICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATYISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0» ^-:5'T-^ OF 2003 PETITIO])TER , ^.'sC^: 32^F ^^•^ ..-•!,^>'"" ^®\^'c^'-* .^' »<^w ^'*' Y ER^ y s Chandramani Rathore, son of late Shri Rikhiram Rathore^ a@ed atoout /45 years ,0ccapationw Asstto sub / Inspector^(M) , posted at District /: Police Office ,uanjfir Chanipai District-Janjgir-Champa,(C*Oo) ^ .^' ^>/ ^RESPONDENTS p'^> $ 1» State ofChhattisgarh^ through^ Secretary^ Home AffairsiiRaipur^ (C<G») : 2<» Director General o£ Police, Rai@ur,(C»G<»5 : 3^ Assistant Inspector General of police, Raipur^(C»G<») (personnel)pollce Headquarter, $ 4» superintendent of police^ Janjgir-Champa^ District-Janjglr Champa^(CoG<») WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLEg 2t6/22^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAo ^n^FT^FT'R^W ^w^n^iwiw WHdT tb*<l<ti '3"^ ^i^i^q^ ^Til^^i^ f^rray ^^M..-..P..:.MQ..,.^.^../..2^.•^200 ^TI^T^^ (^oif^^q) 'STtHW^ft^ 3TT^?T 99.02.2004 India tHat Deparfi|iental Shri Awadh Tripathi, Shri P. Das, P.L. for the The petitioner has prcfen|e 227 of the Constitution of and discrimiaatoiy treatinent| respondents. The petitioner's case is Inspector (M) siace 21.11.1993[ regularization by the ser^ices were regularized aa<| rendering his services aad his pubUshed m fhe year 1999 respectively. However, all of a fhe gradation Ust (Annexure ^ 01.03.2001 and thereafter froml issued on 19.07.2003 aad in| soine juniors persons to the post of Sub-Inspector. Beiag iUegal treatment meted to the reprcsentation but to of no a^ Superintendent of PoUce, Jaajgi|r Deputy Inspector General of Pol 13.06.2002, under whom the petitioner's name has not coitjisel for the petitioner, tate. beela ^TRfei^T 'WR'ff ^f ft^ ^R?K '^3ti^3:iT^?y d fhis petition under Ardcle 226 & being aggrieved by the iaaction given to the petitioner by the he is workiag as Assistaat Sub- and after considering the case for Committee fhe petitioner's fhe petitioner is continuously ^iame appeared in the gradation Ust P& 2000 at Serial No.316 & 298 mdden his name disappeared from }-3) issued by fhe Departinent on the gradation Ust (Annexure P-12) |fhe meantime vide Annexure P-9 )e|titioner have been proraoted to fhie a^grieved by this discriminatoiy ao^d jpetitioner, fhe petitioner raoved a ^lail. Even vide Annexure P-5 the gi|r-Chaiapa also wrote a letter to fhe |ice, Police Headquarters, Raipur on pjetitioner is working; even fhen fhe included in the gradation Ust. GRPRJ—FS/7^—_c/200(—50,000. ^- T XI-HC-22 3^?^T'^T f^WF^rTI^T ^iN-^rftH Po^ko^j L^-. ^-^ -^ra^R, '^teT^, ^<'iwi< srri^r 'q?!^ l^i-P. 362/<?/2,<w3 ^IFmi ^NSGb M fa^^T' 37T^T'^ITW^ft^ Thereafter, fhe Supermtend^ contmuously writmg fhe lett^rs (Amiexure P-5), 03.09.2002 (Annexure P-11), but the narne) iacluded ui the gradation Ust. It is really siirprisiag as missiag from the gradation employee ofthe department. In view of fhe above, ia allowed to make a representat period of 10 days from todaj respondent No.2 in tura shaU further period of thirty days anc iato consideration the service rcfc seniority of fhe petitioner, aa^ petitioner ia his rcpresentatio^ appearing m the gradation Ust, pass aa appropriate order m| mclusion ofname offhe petition^ Wifh the above direction, Consequentiy, M.W.P. No| also staads disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. cb|AS(d4H 'WT^ff ^ ^St if^^K ^T^PW^I^I nt of Police, Jaajgir-Chainpa i.e. letters dated 13.06.2002 (Aimexure P-8) & 16.06.2003 of the petitioner has not yet been how fhe name of fhe petitioner is ist, though he is a permaaent given situation the petitioner is ion to respondent No.2 withia a raisiag all his grievances aad lecide fhe reprcsentation wifhia a pass aa appropriate order taking ;ord, conditions of fhe service aad all fhe groiinds taken by fhe L; as to why his name is not Fhe respondent No,2 is directed to ao. objective inaaner regardiag |r in fhe gradation list. ie petition staads disposed of. 110,161/2003 for ui^ent hearing Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [T^iRgi ^^ Y