/> c^ IN THE HI&H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 92- 2004 PETITIONER Devendra Kumar Kesharwani, S/o Sakharam Kesharwani ,..._ aged about 45 years, ^'•^'\'§^^ R/o Tah. Navagarh .-^C^f^ Distt- JC»"J9ir-^ampa (C.G.) .^".^' ^^.-" ^•' RESPON&ENTS / VERSUS 1. 6ta:tle-o+-^kat+^&i4i— ^ ..^^^ l+i-rofc^-Chief Executive '^^^ Officer (C.E.O.), Jila Panchayat, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Chief Medical & Health Officer ^- bistt. Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22^7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ i ^ % ^"'- ^x t^:l <i ^^ I ^I- s ^ ^ia1?^ 1 I § m- ^ a*I & L^ p^ 2? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 92j?^2QQ4 Petitioner Devendra Kuiaar Kesharwani Versus Respondents Chlef Executive Officer (C.E.O.), JUa Panchayat, Janjgir Chaiapa & another WRFT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 & 227 OFTHE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Gurudeo Sharaa, Advocate for the petitioner, None for the respondent No. 1. Shri A. V, Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondeuts No. 2 & 3. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on this 22nd day ofMarch, 2010) Learned counsel appeadng for the rcspondents No. 2 aiid 3/State submits that this petition, m regard to the first prayer (7(i)} i.e, not to taraasfer the petitioner to aoy new place as it is not m the order dated 10.12.2003, has become ni&nctuous. This petition in. regard to the second prayer {7(m}) i.e, to direct the respondent No. 1 to give all atlowances duri.ng ttie suspension period as the petitioner has been discharged fronx aU allegations, does not survive, as it is not brought to the notice that any order to fhe efiTect of dectining the saiae, has been passed. The tibird prayer {7(iv)} i.e. seeking a direction to graat one year's incremeut, which was stopped, no order whereby it was stopped is iiader chaUenge ia this peUtion. The petitioner does not waat to press the petition on merit, at this stage. In view of fhe above, learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner inay be granted Uberty to approach the concerned aufhority by filing a representation for appropnate reUefs, as sought for m rcUef No. {7(ifci)} aad {7(iv)). This petition is accordiagly disniissed. However, Uberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a representation to fhe concemed authorily, if so advised. The saine inay be considered aad decided, ia accordance with law, witlun reasonable time. No order asto costs. „- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur