^-^ SINGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH^ W.P.Nd.^oi^ OF 2005 / A, PETITIONER ~^' M^' ^'"^y >".^"°.^" A.. ^"^?x ^ v^^^y ^^ ^•m .;r •^ RESPONDENTS <& ^"^"•••"-. *^1^ ^/s // Lalan Kumar Namdeo, S/o Shri Mangal Prasad, aged About45 years, Occupation- Service, presently working As Works Assistant in the 0/0 Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Kawarda, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kawardha Division, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2267227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: ^' ;';?"^ ^ ,..__._L... XI-HC-78 HI*tCM ^*11<» \sv^ ^WM^, w^<wfo. Rioi^i^ ^y. .[^.:y.:.^.Q:.{^:0}.^........ •ff^ 200^' 9TT^?T q^q? (yii^q<a) 3n^^T<prRvii<b ^T2IT3n^Tu»ili<P g^TFW? ^TfecT 3TT^$T 21.09.2005 Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, les|r Mr. Vivek Sharma, learnelc Chhattisgarh. Heard. Learned counse! for the p^t was appointed as Works Assistartt Raipur and was posted at Bilasp^ 04.07.1990 (Annexure P-6) by t!^e iapse of about 11 years and Engineer vide order dated 08.01' penaity of reversion to the lowe^t petitioner had filed an appeal bef<t Chhattisgarh. Public Works Dep^r P"9). According to learned couns|et appeal filed before the Secr Chhattisgarh, Pubiic'Works Dep^ for the last more than 3 yeai| harassment on account of pend^ case of the petitioner has not beer and other benefits. It is expech statutory s.ppeal is filed by the expedjtiousiy preferably within a the present case, the appeal is <hl^Ic641v1^1^c6T'^Bfe^£l><(^)^<l<< ^3rf^t*T3I1^ST ned counse! for the petitioner. Panel Lawyer for the State of titioner submits that the petitioner in the Public Works Department, ". A charge sheet was issued on ^Q Chief Engineer, PWD. After a iix months, the Chief Executive i.2002 (Annexure P-1) imposed pay scale in the cadre. The |)re the Secretary, Government of ^rtment on 29.01.2002 (Annexure for the petitioner, the statutory ?r|etary to the Government of [irtment is pending consideration The petitioner is suffering |ncy of the appeal because the considered for further promotion i|d from the higher offieers that if enr^ployee, the same b@" disposed of |eriod of six to eight months. Jn ^ending for the last more than 3 XI-HC-78 TPRH^^T^ ^szr <-*iiqirt«,y-^^-'i^, Rdi^^ rf-^ ..^:f:.^.o'..L(lo.l.fc.l....... ^Fl200<S~ 3IT^$T <raq»(^c|^<s|<Ei) an^^TwRFTW wffw^^TaRw h*^INNl»r: ^ Sarrr^i ^ ^T g^rTW^ri%^T3n^$T - ^-^ y^^rs ^ndi the appellate authorit^ (? dJ^DOi^si ofthe ^DDesL Learned counset for the resp|ondents submits that there is no limitation for deciding the appeal. H would ba;decided expeditiously. After having heard learned the view that keeping the statutory years, amounts So unfair exercise o that the senior officers would deal \|i/ith his grievances at the eartiest and in the present case, the petiti| than 3 years without any oommij tpi^fco^i T1P=f^f^'I^^l ^\-$i\ ^3Tf^T3^8T has not taken any action for 5 further submits that the appeal ;ounsel for the parties, lam of appeal pending for more than 3 power. The emptoyee expects )ner has been waiting for more inication or indication from the authority concerned about the dispotal of the appeal. !n view of the foregoing, th4 respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dedde the appeal o|? the petitioner (Annexure P-9). expeditiously, preferably within a p^riod of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. For the above stated reaso of. of. Consequently, all pending ^, the petition stands disposed t plications a!so stand disposed Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge