IN THE HON’BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTIEGARH) ‘ WRIT PETIT10N(S) Nogg 8 12010. / Rakesh Kumar, son of Virtalrao Nanvatkar, ag- d about .39 years, working as Ward Boy, Maharani Hospital, Jagdglp‘ur, District Bastar, 1 Chhattisgarh. g versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Heajlth and Family Weifare a ‘ Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur; Chhattisgarh. t i PETmONER: gespondents f 2; Deputy Director Health Services, Sanchanalaya, Raipur, Chhatu’sgarh. / 3. Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalp‘hr, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. / 4. Joint Diréctor cum Asst. I Superintendent, Govt. Medical College, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpui‘, Chhatti‘sgarh. ' RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE " ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W 31mm (Wu) mmfam— WWW“ WWW mmawm i ammm 1 Hon’hle Shn Mamndra Mohm Shnvastava, J. 4.8.2010 With the consent of 1 is heani finally. The case of the peu'tione from duty between the pen'od 2006, as he sunexed from p his joining. However, he was petitioner had submitted medi memo dated 9.6.2009 (Ann directed the Superintendent, report. Vide memo dated 9.9.2 Services, required Joint Hospital; Jagdalpur to make regald to the case of the petitio Learned counsel for the V Government issued a Circular direction to decide such cases date, no nnal decision has been of the petitioner, nor the pe representation was also preft r the petitioner el Lawyer for the State] respondents ed counsel for the parties, the petition is that the petitioner remained absent from 15th February, 2000 to August, sis and after recovery, he submitted e y not allowed to join even'though th certificate at the time of joining. Vide; P—4), Commissioner, Bastar Division harani Hospital, Jagdalpur to submit 09 (Annexure P—5), Directorate, Health tor and Superintendent, Maharani vailable information and details with CI‘. petitioner submitted that the State iated 31.7.2009 (Annexure P—6) with a 3n or before 31“ August, 2009, but till taken by the Joint Director in the case titioner has been allowed to join. A :rred by the petitioner on 6.8.2009 Mr C J K Rao, counsel f Ms Sangeeta M1shra P e c e D' a c XI—HC 78 WWW g WWW (Annexuré 'P—7), but the fmal (incision? in respect of the case of the r petitiener has not been taken till date. “Fmin memo dated 27.3.2009 (AnneXure P—S), 9.6.2009 “(Apnexu‘ye P—4)’ and 9.9.2009 (Alumnus P—5), it is revealed that the case of the ‘pet/itioner has remained pending at different level, but no 1inal decision has been taken. State Government has issued a Circular dated 315‘ Julyl 2009 (Annexure COncerned authority namely resp ndent No.4/Joint Director shall take ' &1a1 dscision in the case of the -6) by which such cases have been directed to be hnally decided till 8 St August, 2009. In this View of the matter, respondent No.4 is directed to take nnal decision withregard to peti 'oner’s case of absence and joining. titioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy o this order and pass necessary order inpthat regard. With the aforesaid direction, the petition finally is disposed 0E. Sd/- , ,3; Manindra Mohan Shrivastavaii ‘ Judge ‘ \ xwwv—r I e ~