IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATISGARH W.P.No?33/2002 PETITIONERS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh (Respondents) Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, RAIPUR [Chhattisgarh] 3'4”) 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railway), GoVt.of Chhattisgarh, RAIPUR [Chhattisgarh] 3. Superintendent of Police(Railwayv)‘ Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur [Chhattisgarh] VERSUS l. Ramlal Srivastava, aged about 35 Years, S/o Late Panna Lal Srivastava, Resident of Moudahapara, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur [Chhattisgarh] 2. Registrar, M. P.Adininistrative _ Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur [C.G] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: RESPONDENT (Applicant) ' .Fo'rrnal Para * XI~HC-22 anéw 23 ma g‘i or. N.K. shuk Add mt vocate eeral, or e $+a1'e PeTHioner. / Hed. ar B 1’his pi'rn de ?le 227’of ‘rh ons?i'ru1io of India the iner hava ayed for uasng ‘he order da‘e -00 asse by f M. Sfu‘re Adminimfive ibu I Rr en, aipu. / Brie¥y safed fhe 's of The ase fh esponen' o.1 was nppoi d 'l'he pos‘r of M Polie e, s n e b s ponon g her d o det o1 ui or see no rd r /19 o w e y efio ur Aric e Cn pafHos pr qhi r rd 2 4-20 pd he .P $ Trn , aipu Bch Rr f f f cr c are a‘r rd'l N n e on .P. c Srvice Clas IV o th is of comossi round since his fat ied. The work f the responn N. was qTe sofisfacfy for ne yeor bu? his rvics have been fermi‘red vide o da‘red 1/296. N sho caus notice was issued To h m before passing ‘rhe order of termina‘rion. He filed variou represenfafions. Ulfima‘rely, lhe order was passed b fhe departmenf and fhe \ \represenfa‘rion of fhe respo dent No.1 was rejected. [dew wP $3 ‘Q ‘ Z , g, m, m Ad %: f m XI-HC—22 The confen‘rion of f a Sfn'rz is fhu'r fhe respondent No.1 was nppoin‘l’ed‘ on co passionate ground ”flemporarily whose services have bee ferminafed af‘l'er- one monfh’s no‘hce The respondenf w s also paid salary of one mon'rh Further confen'hon of Th Sfu‘re is ‘rhnf ‘rWe responden‘r No.1 was appolnfed m 1'h year 1975 on (the pos‘r of Bal Aarakshok (Boy orderly) y ‘rhe Superin'l'ende'nf of‘ Police (Railway) on 8-5-1975. en he was appoin'l'e’d on fhe above said pos'r his fa‘rh r who was a cons‘rable was in service On 7-7-1976 f fher of The responden'r N01 re‘hred and died on 11- 4980 A? fhe hme of his appoln‘l’men‘r fa‘rher of res ondenf No.1 was alive. He was relieved from ‘l'he servi es affer completing leighfeen years of age vide order‘d ted 9-4-1980. The responden‘r No.1 was given opportun'fy to pass his mafriculafion examiria‘l'ion. Afferwards, e was selec'l'ed as home guard. l, The responden? No.1 referred an application before fhe M.P. Stafe Admin‘is‘l’r five Tribunal and fhe Tribunal offer considering fhe ma fer has passed fhe impugned order direcfmg fha‘l’ 'l'he r spondenf No 1 be 'l'aken back In \\ hls servuce wrl'hm one mon of recelpf of This order. [The éfaz} h . XI—HC—22 'fif*e¢n days' 1‘ime may be gl‘ passed by 'ihe Tribunal. 1 7/“, g’% Having *hus considered ‘rha fuc‘rs and circumsfnnces 'he judgmenf of The Apex Courf ~ Vs. Sfeei Au‘rhag'ci’ry of Indio 493, we ore of ‘rhe opinion That >f 'rhis Cour? in‘exercise of H's under Article 227 of ihe Consfiiu'rion of India is mo‘ of *he case and in view of 1 in fhe case of Balbir Kau reported in (2000) 6 SCCI no case for interference q supervisory jurisdiction de out Learned kdditional Advocate General submitted that 'an‘ied To comply wifh fine order Time as prayed for is Igranfed fa fhe Sfote +0 comply mal, which shall be reported to wifh Vhe order of fhe Tribt 1’he Tribunal. Subject to what hash een stated above, this petition is dismissed. cot. /We Sdl- U i Fakhruddin Sdl- l Judge Chief Justice i [11%W