”A BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJISGARH AT BILA SPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO, 3Mbé /2010 x PETITIONER Akhilesh Upadhyay, aged abouf 32 years, son of Shri Omprakash Upadhyay, working as Zila Bal Amkshak, Zila Police Bal, Bilaspur (CG) R/o. Pant Naka Mahalgaon, behind A.G. Office,)186 Rajya Karmchar'i Colony — Gwalior (MP) presently resided of Police -Lines, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS K, The Union of India, Through fhe Secretary, Minisfry of Personnel Grievances, Training Nirman RESPONDENTS Bhawan, New Delhi. The S‘ra‘re of Chha’rfisgarh, fhru — Secrefary, Deparfmenf of General Adminisfrafion, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) *r 3. Sfa‘re of Madhya Pradesh, Through fhe Secrefary, Depf’f of General Adminisfrafion, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) Wz/ / 4. WRIT PETIfION U/A. 2 @ Mi’rhilesh Ku. Choudhary, aged about 38 years. son of Lafe Romvar'cm Choudhary, working as Zila Bdl Ar‘akshak, Zila Police Bal, Anuppur', Disff. Anuppur' (MP) R/o. Village and P05? Bafhuar‘a (Bihar'). 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _ WWW WWW Wmm awifanm SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 14.7.2010 Shri Prashant Jaiswal, counsel for the pctitioner. Shri Kashif Shakaal, stgilding counsel for respondent No.1, on advance copy. sim' Vinod Tekam, Pane. on advance copy. 4r Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Mishra, mm (WEI) Heani. Lawyer for the State] respondent No.2, Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in me petiu'on is that in the matter of allocation, tjm: and. again, respondents allowed the Government servants to sub‘n Lit application for allocation on mutual consent and one such Circular 1). Petitioner and respondent respective allocations on mutual consent basis by submitting application in prescribed proforma vide Annexures P-2 and P—3. However, since then, the matter has remained pending without there being any decision. petitioner brings to the notice of this Learned counsel for the Court subsequent Circular issued on 11.5.20 10 by respondent No. 2, which shows that the allocatinn on mutual consent is still going on. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peu'tioner is was issued on 25.2.2004 (Annexure P- No.4 submitted applications for their Xf-HC 78 i‘,\# m 200 mm mm (ma) mm ma 3m! f2, mwm‘ amwéyrm mWqw‘LWWafagR %aimm //i Praveen Jw entitlsd to consideration of hi basiS consistent with the polio: Taking into considoratic this Coult, it would be expe( direction to respondents. Hence following order — (a) Respondents sha' mutual consent 1 allocation exisu'ng within a reasonab the date of receipt of the respondentg. Decision taken in to the petitioner tl] With the aforesaid dilec 0E. s case for allocation on mutual consent I enunciated by respondents. in the nature of grievance raised before lient in the interest of justice to issue ,r d consider petitioner’s application for n accordance with the guidelines for and in force. The decision shall be taken le period not exceeding 4 months from of copy of this order in the o‘fdce of each the matter shall also be communicated rough respondent No.2. hon the petition stands finally disposed Sdl~ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava3 Judge Certified copy as per rul ‘ : e .