^^^- Y-^ IN TIii. HIGH COURT OF 24ffi)HYA PRADBSH AT JABALPUB W.P. N©. 6"1 • ©f199$ Petitioner: Respondents: ^^ Shantilal Yadav, S/©of Terasram Yadav, Aged about 31 years, Bx-Messenger-.Gum-Swee per, Bilas pur-Eai pur Ksteietriya Gramin Banfc, Branoh Masturi, District Bilaspur, M.P. Versus Bllaspur-Baipur Ks^etriya Gramin Bank, Tfarougia its Ghairman, Heaol Offlce Dayalband, Bilaspur, Distriot Bilaspur, M.P. Pin 49^ 001. Tfae Ohairman, Bilaspur-Baipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office Dayalfeand, Bilaspur^ District Bilaspur, M.P, Pin 49? 001. WE£T-pi?£TION.J 3B^^TIGH£S_226/227OF TBB OON.STIIUTION OF IHDIA HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGJMyi: BILASPUR Sia^e Bexich: Hosx'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotri^ J. W.P.N0.670F 1996 Petitioner : Shantilal Yadav Versus Respondents : Bilaspiir-RaipurKshetriyaGramiui Baii1? aad another Shri Viaod Deshiaukh, coiinsel for the petitioiier. Sliii Kashif Shakeel, counsel for the respondeuts, ORAL ORDBR (20th February, 2006) 1, ; 'Leajnied cozinsel appeariiig for the petitioner, subaiits fhat fhe petitioner has filed aji appeal oa 5.6.1995 (Annexiire P- 9), Leamed cozinsel furfher siibniits that tiie respondents be drrected to consider his appeal/appUcation, dated 5.6.1995 and clecide fhe saoie expeditiously. 2. Shri Kashif ShaJs:eel, appearing for respondents No, 1 ancl 2^ states that fhe petitioner has not filed aii appeal as required zinder law, biit a siniple appUcation (Annexure P- 9) before the Chairaian-respondeiit No.2. 3. This appUcatk>n is uot ia proper fbnn aiid not addressed to the Board of Directors. Be fbat as it inay^ the respondeuts should not iasist tipon siich a technicaUty froxn fhe deUiiquent einployee for filmg appeal, The appUcation fUed by the petitk>ner be treated as aii appeal. 4. Accordiagly, fhe respondents are directed to trcat fhis appUcation as aa appeal aad place before the appropriate axifhority fbr consideration and decision. 7. The concemed aiithorities are directed to consider this appUcation as appe.al wifhia a period ofsix weeks froai the date of receipt/ prodziction of a copy of fhis order. In view^of the above, this petition is disposed of reserymg the Uberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition, if aiiy cause ofaction arises after disposal ofthe appeai. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 11.1.96, which was contmued ou 16,8.96 wUl contmue tUl fhe disposal offhe appeal by the concemed azithority. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge