^^..^^ .-";SS':fs3£il" 'd l .!•• i6^ ,n<Sff y.'*1-' >A..--" C^l^^, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P (S) N0. &^G /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /l] 2] 3] -4] V.K. Gupta, S/o. Late R.K. Gupta, aged about 51 years, R/o. Qtr. No. H-3, Chhirpani Colony, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Additional Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ChiefExecutive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Collector, Kabirdham, Kabirdham (C.G.) District Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 NiqclI^tflW ^ST -41'41<rl'4, ©tfly'is,fq<'iwy,< ^.......W:..^...te..)....^.^.^fr STI^T 'ipra? (i^f3^T) sn^rqiT'f?^ '?Tsff 3TT^?T 5FTSt^r Tsnw ^ift?i an^i SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRlfINKER DEWAKER Shri Manoj Parailjape, coi.in Shii Vivek Sharma, P.L. for ^el for the petitioner. PIC Stete/ respondents. .onetr Grievaace of fhe petitione enKiiieer in fbe Water Resources C he was susoended however, the iuefiective after fhe expiry of 90 ofthe saoie. He further submits been accepted by the departiaenl respect has been passed. It h^ petitioner fhat though niore than| date there is no substantial pi enquuy. d^ys tUat Counsel for fhe petitioaer niay be pertnitted to withdraw be issued to decide the pendin^ dated 30.10.09 & 28.9.2010 State counsel subinits that frcsh representation detailing his m tum his representation. would facts and circunistaiices offhe ca; Accordiagly, the petitioner petition wifh fbe liberty to inake cfi^Cl<ftl ^lHfll ^f fel3t ^l^K ^affinan^H who is workiug as Sub- epartaient is that oa 31.7.09, suspension order became from the date of issuance tiU date his joining has not and no fonnal order iu this s been poiated out by the one year has elapsed but till •ogress ifa fhe departm.entel tUis j'ubmits that at fhis stage, he petition aad direction niay retiK-sentations of fhe petitioner P/9&P/10). (Aiuid'xures let the petitioner inake a :laim to respondent No. 1 aud ae decided considermg all fhe LS peiinitted to withdraw fhis < a fresh representation to fhe 'f^1|:irf'!;Jiin!iBTl!-raa-: XI-HG—78 *<l*'(!f(T WW^l 'TS[ -41-41citi, ®'nly-li<o,Is«'ii-Hy,< ..^i.>...^.^..^..^^ lcs /200 3i1^T'q^T (liclfj'i<<tlT) sii^iqafrfi^ ^T 3?T^?T ^*fl^> TOIIW ^lft?i 311^1 resp. No.l wifhin a period of receipt of copy of fhis order anc decide the saiue wifhia a furttiei date ofits receipt. It is inade clear that this opiuion on nierits of the case would be at Uberty to decide tfa with law. <M<i(<n<fli iTR^rf ^ 'f^et' ^^R ^aifipTaii^r [hree weeks froin fhe date of ui tura the resp. N0.1 shall period of one taonttl from. the Court has aot expressed any aad fhe auttiority concemed e saiue strictly in acGordance Sd/- PririnkerDiwakar Judge llTI^ !|lf|53|ff][ll]Bn-1i(,»:)t.da)]jsijij|