IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION S N0. LIZ OF 2011 PETITIONER : Amrika Prasad Yadav, son o Late Baharta Ram Yadav, aged about 51 years, working, on the post of Forest-Guard, resident of Kasaniya Depot, Forest Division Office, Katghora, Tehsii— Katghora, District— Korba (Chhattisgarh) / VERSUS / RESPONDENTS: 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2)/ Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) / 3) Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora, Forest Division, Katghora, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f \ m w€6327£129/14& 200 3WW (Wu) mam ' r . . M J. ohan ‘Shrivastava B : Hcn’ble Shri Manin 9. 12.20 1 1 Shri V.K. Pandey, cou sel for the petitioner. IShri Shashank Thak , Panel Lawyer for the Stats, 0n advance copy. L; The grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition, is that the petitio er, having been regularized on the post vide order dated 24.1.200 (Annexure_P—3),_ has not been granted proper seniority with edect om the date of his appoiritment as daily wage employee. Learhed counsel for he petitioner submits that vide order. dated 24. 1.2000, the petitio er was given regular appointment on the post. Thereafter, a gradatio list was issued in which the petitioner .e.f. 25.1.2000, whereas, the petitioner “:4 has been granted seniority was entitled to be given seniority w.e.f. 4.12.1979. He further submits that though repre entation has been made, the same has not been considered by the ivisional Forest On‘icer. It appears that the ’p titioner in his representation has been claiming seniority with eifec from the date of his initial appointment, ‘T‘\ though the stipulation in t e order of regularization shows that he 3’ has been granted seniority ith eh'ect from the date ofjoining, S dr 0 WWW wmm WM wm . aawm zlaim of the petitioner may be consideted Be that as it may, the by respgg'laent No.3 in accort ' “The petitioner shall respondent No.3, who shal Quter limit of 3 monthsf With the aforesaid obs ervations, the petition is finally disposed of. It is made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ciaim of the petitgwmfL/v 1ance with law. ”prefer detailed >repre‘sentation before _ take decision in the matter within an / Sdl— ohan Shrivastava 1,,Manindra M Judge W W5m, mg? mm .....................................:..............wtm amtm (Wu)