r ^s"t IN THE mGH COURT OF JIJDICAWRE AT BILASPIJR CHHATTISGARH WRIT pErrrroN NO. l s2-8 /loos i 1 -^ ^ M.A. Hanfi, S/o- Late Dost Ali, A.ged about 59 years, Presently working as Godown Keeper in Laghu Van Upaj, Division-Korea, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korsa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS State ofChattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Deptt ofForest, D,K,S> Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ChiefConservator ofForest, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,, Divisional Forest Officer, Division- Korea, Baikunth-pur, District- Korea, Chfasttisgarh, 1 •s.&^^.^ ^^^^^ '?'.°^^"^'' -r\- 4aw"b RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ART8CLE 226/227 OF_JTjE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR SSSUANCE OF APPROPRiATE WRST SN THE NATURE OF MANDAIViUS. CERTIORARI ETC. XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T fN^^n^r $b^icb^f?cT '^.. -V 3^ "Mi-yid'q, s$Tfl'y<i<o, fs|diy^< 3TT^T Hi^^nr^^ich [W^X< _^^ K'^l&f ^ 200 2 3:n^T^<nw^rf?cr Keet3er 25.4.2Q05 Mr, Paakaj Shrivatss Mr, AkhU Agrawal, Heard. The petitioner's appoiiited as Godown Vaa Upaj, However, ia i\ aboUshed, aiid the post of| Forest Guard, as tiie pa^ Godowu Keeper, Flirther tlie Laghu Van Upaj othe^ Keeper along witli the Forest Guard but the peti^ tlie petitioner has been f^ Keeper. Leanied counsel for| post of Godowu Keeper| therefore, the respondent^ Wireless depart-ment, whe( benefits which have beenl situated persons, Ultuiiat^ that the petitioner niay respondent No,2 aiid rc? representation, to this has no objection. }.va, counsel for the petitioner, Ptuiel Lawyer for respondent No. 1 to 3, pel|ltion <^N?ci41vi ^i^cnTTfte^t^^K ^sri^Tr^n^r is that ia tlie yeai' 1969 he was along with 26 oflier persons ia Laghu jie year 1972 tlie Laghu Vaii Upaj was [Godowu Keeper was merged ia fhe post of scale of Forest Guard was saiiie of fhe base of fhe petitioner is that ou aboUtion of persons who were appointed as Godown s|itioner have been merged iii tlie post of ^ioner's services have not been merged aad >rced to continue on flie post of Godown tlie petitioner submits that as tliere is uo is available in tlie forest departineut, are takiag work frora fhe petitioner iii tlie reas the petitioner is entitled for fhe saine given by the respondents to tlie stmilarly dy, leained coiinsel for tlie petitioner pi-ays |be allowed to make a representation to ^pondent No,2 be dirccted to decide his pijayer learaed coiinsel for the respondents XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T R?TT^3T7^T $h^Icb^1^T 3^ •^i^i<n*i, i?Tf1<i<i<o, (sidiy^< 3ii^i ^5i<»> _ WR^TTgWRR^'"""""""""" H^ 200 22 ^ 3T[^T^<TT^K^f5cT z represe4tation Haviiig heard learne|d regard to tfae facts: aud circ^ aUowed to make a wifliiii a period of ten days his grievaaces aad ia tura r^ representation ofthe petitioi^€ clate of receipt of the repres| raised by fhe petitioner io. ac| With tlie du'ection Consequently, I,A, No,^ Certiiied copy as per njiles, chl^?d41v1 HIH^T^te^^^K ^3Tf^T3TI^T coiuisel for tlie parties aad havuig ^iBistaaces of the case, thie petitioner is along with copy of tliis petition f^om today to respondent No,2 raising all ^spondent No.2 is directed to decide flie |er wifhui aaother tliree inoufhs froui the mtation after consideriiig aU the pouits ^ordaace wifh law. r^said, the petitiou stands disposed of p963/05 alsostands disposed of, aforfesaid Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge