^S.1Z.^^-K^^>^W^.^^& ^l £: si»h IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.) WRIT PETITION rs^ N0. l^^i. ' QF 2010 PETITIONER ^•A; ^^ ^•^y' .^,- r ^ ^r-''''W< ^" RESPONDENTS Sarju Prasad Dubey Son of Late Shri Ram Pravesh Dubey, aged aboul 50 years, Resident of Mayapur, Near Shiv Shakti Kerosene Oil, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS ; 1; StateofChhattisgarh,Through: The Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).' 3. /^The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Superintendent of Police (Radio/Wireless), Bilaspur Zone/ Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L—..——_. /?^ ^.:^^.i\ ;C'1%1;*^ ~y M^ Sky y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1868 of2010 Petitioner Sarju Prasad Dubey Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 23rd ofApriI, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner remained under suspension for the period from 02.11.1997 to 27.09.1999 during trial of thecriminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. The petitioner preferred a representation on 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/4) to consider his case for grant of his salary and allowance for the period he remained under suspension. No decision has been taken. A seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, observed that in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition within a period of about 27 days from making the representations, without giving reasonable time to the authorities to consider his representation and pass the order. The petitioner ought to have waited till decision of the 1 (1989) 4 SCC 582 %y^^^^, -%^aas^ Arun representation; orsix months, whatever is earlier. Thus, the present petition cannot be entertained at this stage. 4. In view of the well settled principles of law to the fact of the present case and the pendency of the representation of the petitioner for sympathetic consideration, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be consider within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. ——~- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge