rr ,-&' ?0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBLLASPUR WRFT PETmON CS) No.2298 of2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Sundar Mani Patel S/o Kuber Chand Patel. aged about 59 years, Woricing Block Extension Educator'Trainer, Community Health Centre, Tanmar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattissarh Throueh Secretan', Health and Family Welfare Departiiient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Director, Health Serviees, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Medical and Health OfScer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Block Medical OfBcer, Communitv Health Centre, Tranmar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WMT PETmONLTNDER ARTICLE 2260FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satfsh K. Affluhotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Arvmd )ey, Paael Law^'er for the State/respondents. 2. (Passed on 04m day of May, 2009) The petitioner, by way of this petition seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consida' and decide the representation dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure P/4) m accordance with law and farther to quash the order dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner has been irjbrmed that his age ofsuperannuation is 60 years. The facts, in nutsliell, are that the petitioner, workiag as Block Exteiision Educator/Tramer, was served with order dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure P/2) stating therein that the petitioner would superannuate on 30.06.2009. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Director, Health Serviees, Raipur on 20.03.2009. a 3. After filing of the representation, the petitioner, without. waiting fer reasonable time, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide his case in accordance with law. 4. Since the representation is pending before fhe respondent No. 2, the question vvith regard to the age of superaimuation cannot be decided at this stage before the representation is decided bv the aufhorities concemed. The petitioner may pursue his representation before the aufhorities concemed. If tlie representation is not decided within the reasonable time, or if the grievance of the petitioner still survives, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court. 5. In view offhe foregoing, he petition is dismissed being premature at this ;e. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge