INjraiE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT WLASFUVt. WMTPKriTION (Sl N0. ^iO^ /2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS /•2. 3. 4. Chhote Lal Patel, S/o. Shri Hari Prasad Patel, Aged about 51 3rears, Peon, Posted at Balak Chliatrawas Raghunathnagar, Wadra&iagar, District-Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhatti^arh, Through fhe Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Comiuissioner, Tribal Welfare, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) Block Education OfBcer, Wadrafnagar, Distnct-Surguja (C.G.) CoUector, (Tribal Welfare) Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .h 1 4^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS W.P.(S1.NO. 6104/2011 Chhote Lal Patel versu^ State of C.G. 8s Others Shri Chanderesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Dy.GA. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.10.2011) Orievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though he is entitled for being regularized as Assistant Grade III but till date his case has not been considered and his representation, made pursuant to the order passed by this Court has not been decided. Counsel for the petitioner submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if direction is issued to the resp. No.2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within time frame. State counse! submits that the petitioner made representation in the year 2009 and has approached this Court almost after two years and in the facts and circumstances of the case, he be directed to make fresh representation detailing his claim and in tum the respondent No.2 will decide the same in accordance with law. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a detailed representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in tum the resp. No.2 shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the . merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law. ludge