w.P.No. owi . 2006 station, Beena Tah. 8a Distt.- Beena (M.P.) _1_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISG AT i BILAsPUR (C.G.l \ PETITIONEI; . : Dr. Pram Prakash Shrivastva é u T o Shri R.S. Shrivastva Aged SHE .j émamedhvm 7a .......mAbout 39 Years Permanent V/ Resident of Akata Colony Rajeev Wada Behind of new Telephone ‘ F, , \ Present Residentz~ Vikas Nagar Kootara road Raigarh (C,G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA Through:Principal Secretary Govsrnment’ 'i of ' India, Deptt,of public Grievances New Delhi, 2'. State of Chhattisgarl; / Through: General Administrative Department D.K.S. Bhawan VRaipur (C.G.) if§ 3. State of Madhya Pradesh / Throughz—General Administrative V 1, ‘ H wm'r Permian when ARTICLE 226 227 or THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . 4) . F 2 Department ~Vallabha Bhavvan g?~ / v “é Q ‘ MBhopal (M.P.) .4‘ ‘~/éj9g4. The director CA9: I? ( Veterinary Department V, Raipur(C.G.) XI—HC-78 WW,W,W ooooolo‘oo.‘o {A} ?‘Z?2.7 o.‘.o.. WW WW(W) 1H 2004 which Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.2 & 4 has no objection. Heard Mr. Vineet Pandoy, .vrned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. AgrawaL learned Deputy Advoca Genera! for the State/respondents No.2 & 4, The case of the petitioner s that the petitioner was selected in the year 2000 for the post of Veten‘nary istant Surgeon and was posted at Raigarh Veterinary Development Office as Development Ohicer. Copy of the appointment order is Annexure P . Thereafter. on account of reorganisation of the State, the State of Chhattisgrh came into existence and for allocation of employees appiioations were in ited in which the petitioner aiso moved an application for allotment to the S n -« of Madhya Fradesh, that toowith mutual consent of an employee who wa -»- to come to Chhattisgarh, copy of the same is Annexure P-2. The petitione aiso made a representation on 144-2001. Final allocation of Animal Husba dry Depaitment was published on 7-9-2002 and the name of the petitioner es not find place in the said final allocation. Therefore, again the petitioner de a representation to respondent No.2 on 20-1 0-2005. even then the petiti Having heard learned coo sel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the c the petitioner is alIOWed to make a detailed representation to respondent No. o - r’s representation has not been considered. o a , through respondent No.4 within a period of No.2 with his comments within 0 days from the date of its receipt, in tum, - > - within = t - s - d WWW WW%‘WW WWW WWW émfrwm 22-6-2na6 LATER ON Mr. Vineet Pandey, counsl for the petitioner, appeared and submitted that the ma11er pertains to aibcati n, therefore, the petitioner may be ailowed to make a representation to respo ant No.1 through respondents No.2 & 3 to XI~HC—78 qg; EWWW ZQz Wm ”n... a1 2004 WW<W> WWW mmm WM§WW WWW .—. Z—r é a w m another 3D days from the date bf i3 recaipt to respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.3 sha" forward the same within Mo months frcm the date 0f its receipt to respondent No.1 with comments and respondent No.1 shal! finaiiy decide the repyesentation within ancther three months from the date of its receipt. With the ditection aforesai , the petition siands disposed of. Patties are'entitled‘ for ca ’ led copy of this order; L.C. Bhadoo Judge I sw- I I