o'^ ^ 'r-— ^ IN THE HIGH COURT O? JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRZT PSTITION N0. 4-18'3 0? 2003 BETWEEN 1» Ratan Lal Kiunte s/6 ghri Jagat Ram Kiunte^ ^red about 42 years^ Exclse sub Inspector Lonni^ District Bilaspur (03)• 2. Lav K nar Choubey S/o ghrlM<iL<iChoub@y^age(3about 42 years» Bxcige Sub inspector, Bllaigarh ©istrict Raipur (CG). Rai^ IQmajr Banghe s/o Shri Lojhoram Baghe^aged afe>out 43 years^ Excise sub in^pector^ Manendragarh^ District Msrea (03). Ra^esh IQmar Agrawal S/o ghri Durga Erasad Agrawal^ aged 45 years^ Excise sub 3hspQCtor Kav^ardha^ District Kawarfha (C33) < Santosh imar £3©sbmu3chS/o Late ^hrl M^R<23Bshmukh^ ^ed 48 years^ Bxcise sub 3ftspector Bilaspur Dlstrict Bilaspur (co)• Satish KUmar ^haCTna S/o Late Shri Laxmikant ghiarma^ aged 46 years^ Excise sub 3hspector Kanker Disferict Kanker (03)• Indrashah Mandavi S/o ^iri N.s»Man<3avi.»aged 42 years Sub 33ispector<r Kanker District Kanker (CG). 6, / . Indrast L^p" PETITIONRRS A N D 2. 3. 4. r£he Sfcate of chhattisgarh^ throiigh the Principle gBoreta^y\G®^eralAdminlstration Bepartment, Mantralay D.K.s-Building Ralpur ('CG). Sh©secretary pinance and E&anning Department^ chhattisgarh^ Radpur, Tehsil and District Ralpur (CG) • f£he C^xnmissioner^ Excise DBpartment^ chhattisgarh^ mipur* Ohe C3ommission@r^ Sales Tax Bepartment^ ctihattisgar^ Raipur (CG) • RBSSDNDEKTS O? THE CONSTITUTION OP INIDN WRIT RETITION UNQER ARTICLES 226/22 pi——i—M^—B 5°l iei HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON No. 4183 of2003 PETmQNERS : Ratan Lal Khunte & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnffliotei, J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate tbr the petitioners. Slm M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govenmiefft Advocate with Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 10ttl day of September, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Inspector in the Sales Tax Department has been disturbed and consequential relief has beeii denied on account of improper seniority assigned to the petitioners. Smt. Kochar, aa instmctions, submits that at this stage; the petitioners do not want to contest ttiis petition on merits, and pray that they may be granted liberty to make a representation before the authorities concemed and in tum, the authorities may be directed to consider and decide their representatioii, as eariy as possible. , 2. Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing far the State/respond^nts submits that in the event the petitioners make a representation to the concemed authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably withia a period offour weeks fromthe date ofreceipt ofthe represaitati<m. 3. In view of the above- according to leamed counsel appearing fbr Ifae petitioners, nothing survives for adjudication. 4. Accordingly; the writ petition is disposed of< Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit