T .-.I c . ^ • ^ ^ W TSK SON'SLK SfQK C0UKT OF CSSATTtSQAKff OtrmCATUKK AT BILA8PVR w.p. / s) jyo. 33 < /2020 ^ •^Q.- PEUTSaiSSS: ^.lvc;::i'"8^ •'-:?^ \ws^^""'.^- ...^-v& ^S-^W^- ;- Smt Noorjahan Pa.rveen AU ^<g'Zo ShriNisarAH Aged about 42 yea.rs Oexupation-Shiksha Karfm (PTl) gra.de 'S Govemment ffigh School Dodhrapal ^Block' Bakawan Jagdalpur Dist-Bastar (C.G.) -k KKSPOJWSNTS: VKR8V8 l.State of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary , Department of Panchayat and Rurcil Development Mantralaya^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) ^ 2. Chief Bxecuive Officer Jila Panchayat Jagdalpur Dist Bastar (C.G.) <» 3. Chief Execuive Officer Jila Panchayat Raipur ^ T- Dist- Rwpur (C.G) WRIT PKTZTION VimKR AKTfCLS 22€/227aF TSBCOy8fFS7VTI01f 0F WWA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRIT PETmON fS) No. 395 of2010 PETmONER : Smt. NoorJahan Parveen Ali. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OP INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish IC Asnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri M.P,S.Bhatia, Deputy Gov^nment Advocate forthe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 28th day of January, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sutnnits that the petitioner has no other remedy except to seek a direction against fhe respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Executive Ofticer, Jaiipad Panchayat^ Jagdalpur, to consider and decide her representation dated 22/23 September, 2009 (Annexure P/6) in accordance wifh law, which is pending consideration. Ms. Pandey farther submits that the respondent No. 2^ bemg a public servant, is expected to consider and resolve the grievances of the employees at tiie earliest. However, nofhing has happened for tiie last fbur montfas. 2. It is expected that a public ser^aiit should act wifh fhe spirit of public ser^ice if an employee or a person approaches, he should attempt to resolve fhe issue and pajss order on their representati<ms, as expeditiously as possible.It appears that in the present case, the respondent No. 2 is sitting over the representation of the petitioner without any reason. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforestated rqpresentation, in accordance wifh law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period offour weeks from fhe date ofreceipt of a copy offhis ordCT. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge