IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.JS) N0.5B3?- /201-1 PETITIONER Daya Shankar Sahu S/o. Shri Milav ram Sahu Aged about 37 years R/o. Sambalpuri, P.0.: Sakri Dist.: Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS / fl ..-•"'t^ ..-•f'ny ... 9t>'./<- ^•^...••""' ^..<'"f^^--^ -^^ -o\'i -•^' RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretaiy, Departinent of Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2.' Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3.^ The Commandant, 12th Battalion, Special Armed Forces, Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -!- -HC—78 r ?;=f •^NM'4, griiy'Kc, t^iray ^M^.:5^).ll^ an^I'q?I^(Tjqf3if^) SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra nfloharl 29-09-2011 j 'wfeih imcff-cr fest •(fSi^re ^sfRpTsn^i Shrivastava. J. Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel fo Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Heard. This petition has been filed dated 01-04-2000 passed by the before the State Administrative Tril the availability of remedy of departr preferred departmental appeal on Police. The petitioner again appro| challenging the order of discharge, undecided. The aforesaid writ petitii of the statement that departmental petitioner then preferred representaf his departmental appeal giving passed in W.P.No.1366 of 200^ identically situated person namelyl discharged by the same order date| has been allowed by this Court vid( affirmed by the Writ Appellate Cc]i orderdated 13-01-2011. ! the petitioner. 1-awyer forthe State on advance copy. by the petitioner aggrieved by order t'espondent No.3, a petition was filed lunal, which was dismissed, in view of ^ental appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner 19-02-2003 to the Director General of i^ched the Court by filing writ petition as the departmenta] appeal remained m was dismissed as withdrawn, in view appeal is pending consideration. The ion on 01-06-2007 for early decision of [eference to order dated 02-01-2007 While the matter stood thus, one Devendra Nath Mishra, who was also 01-04-2000, filed a writ petition, which order dated 29-03-2010 and has been jrt by dismissing the writ appeal vide Learned counsel for the petij petitioner is required to be decidecj in the case of Devendra Nath Mishl :ioner submits that now the appeal of the in the light of the decision of this Court a, as both are identically placed. ~-F l-HC—78 7°? "41-41?'!^, 9T)1'M'16, fajdt'!-14< sni?;Ti3R7 (^F^^) aTRW ^i f^ira- aaTsn^ig^jNr TCiTWfffefSiI^I z- Tumane On the other hand, learni departmental appeal preferred by th as possible. jd State counsel submits that the ^ petitioner would be decided as early mlade Considering the submission taking into consideration that the de| has remained pending since long[ identically situated Devendra Nath l^ Court, the respondent-appellate petitioner's departmental appeal wit date of receipt of a copy of this o| appeal of the petitioner, the resfjc considerthe plea ofthe petitioner t^at Nath Mishra, whose petition has be^r With the aforesaid direction, tf ^ri^T'N iwrof <f 1's'zt'rfSn^re ^7 3iRTT 31!^T by learned counsel for the parties, (artmental appeal filed by the petitioner and also considering the case of ishra, which has been decided by this luthority is directed to decide the lin a period of three months from the •der. While deciding the departmental ondent-appellate authority shall also he is similarly situated as Devendra allowed by this Court. e petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge