INTHEHIGHCOIJRTQFJBDICIATGREATBILASPUR WP.No.2g,53/2003 y PETITIONER: ...-MaiitiaranLal Sahu, Aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Meghnath Sahu,: Line Supervisior Grade-Q, Residenf ofNewSarkanda,BangaliPara,GaliNo.3,Bilaspur.. . . y'eisiis /•<^' RESPONDE ^/"<^P ?S ^' ?-lT'Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (C.S.E.B.) thi-ough •^- FV uumtiisg.im ^iaie mcuiriuuy ouaru ^.3.i..D.^ iiuuugi. ^•oi^-^ ^Chairman,Raipur . ^•'gg? ^LZ^R.P Sharma Divisional Engineer, CS.E.B. Bilaspur City •• ^^<5- Division,BUaspur. ^ <;> o^* ^L-3.StateofChhattisgarhthroughHomeSeCTetary,Govemment6f ^'^ .-• / Chhattisgaih, Raipur. s<i'^' y' fl^-4. City Superintendent ofpolice, Bilaspur. '•ETITION UNDER ARTICALS 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA n F Xi-H! ^A-n^—h. WiwS V; TW.SS r^ <^iS^ ^^1% '•Sii^1^;^i?'"^i^^te? g^ci .^T'II'^FT, -@'(TR:FTTS, T^^'RTgT ^>.:£.-..2-3..v>.3-.l<^a...^°i' zuy vf\ G^t v'/ sT'flR^ •sm'a s(R?i tSRfe^h ^R^if ^ fsQt TfSr- q; sSw, sws ^1.01.2005:-^ Shri K.A.Ansari, learned coun^el for the petitioner. Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned P.|. for the State/respondent. Heard. 1 The petitioner by the instanti petition has challenged his order of suspension ofAnnexure P/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during penetency of I the petition departmental inquiryj against the petitioner has been concluded and the respondents |iave imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments against| which the petitioner had preferred a j departmental appeal before the aplpellate authority which was pending and in the light of subsequent de^elopments, the petition has become S infructuous. Therefore, learned coun^el for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. | However, learned counset ^ubmits that there are eertain dues 1 - . .. .. . . . . ; 1 payable to the petitioner for which hjs is legally entitled to receive but that has not been paid by the respondenls during the pendency of the petition despite order ofthis Court. 1-1 e furth^r submits that the petitioner be given fw^ j a liberty to move a suitable applicajtion for all the _deateJ:or which he is lawful entitled, before the responc^ents and after cohsidering the said application, the respondents should bje directed to decide the same as per rules. ! Learned coun'iel for tbe r.eadondents submits that the petition has 1 . . . . .. .. .^—^.^f^' . . . .. .' ,. become infructuous in the light "bTtTjat the departmentai inquiry has been ' concluded and the petitioner has all'eady been ordered to be reinstated Ifflii' ySS9WS!s9s3SU US:S^KiKS^Xi ;s?%''K-iffii?s;&^?-3^M',':.i;.!?i S^S^KS^^^ XI-HC—78 -S^ ^NRPT, g'-dty' IS; fN^TRTy :^.^:.^%..9^/0 •3'iT^i ?ST 'WFa ^•^ S^€f^:H^' I i^T'^?-?^ ^&^^: / "viai^r35F15tSH^3~67T200Tin3'Ti5-R^iTi55n^oit5TiTKar^~Ro5H~i<ota7 and the petitioner has not joined his se(vices at Kota. Be that as it may be, since tt^e departmental inquiry is conctuded the instant petition has become infruittuous and in the light of the same, the petition deserves to be dismissecj as withdrawn and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner i^ granted liberty to move a detailed application which should be complete jin all respect in order to enabls the respondents to decide the same, for ?11 the outstanding dues for which he is entitled lawfully to receive from thej respondents which shall be decided by them as early as possible preferalply within a period of six weeks after the date of receipt of such application.j With these observations, the petitionstands disposed of. C.C. as per rules. | i-----------—____ DhirendraMishra . Judge "