CL-9 l ^ ^ ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Vl.TC^SO. S~^y6 6 /2006 PETITIONER Dr. A.K.Jha, S/o. Shri B. Jha, aged /^ '..-"f"tjJJ~^ about 50 years, R/o. Community >•••" Uoo1+h ("'nn+T-n lCQT-m Health Centre, Kargi Road, Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ^^•^' .***' '^^ RESPONDSNTS ^ \w ^^ /^/ ^' v VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ^ Through: Secretary, Department of Health, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Health Services, D.K.S./- Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 ^^OF^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFLAJffRITJN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO_JUSTICE^IN THE MATTER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION <S) No.5466 of2006 PETmONER RESPONDENT8 Dr. A.K.Jha. VERSUS State ot'Chhattisgarh & Others. WRILPETmCMDNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA • • SBLHon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate forths petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate tbrthe State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 24tn day of Noverober, 2009) 1. i Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be considered for grant ofpromotional pay-scale. senior pay- scale as well as ya.de of surgical specialist, for which &e petitioner is legally entitled as he has been working for the last 21 years on the post ofMedical Ofiicer. 2. In response, Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govermnent Advocate relying on the averments made in para 11 ofthe retum dated 21 January, 2008, submits that later on, after due consideration, the mistake was detected and it was found Ihat fhe petitionar is entMed for comideration fw senior pay-scale/promotion benefrts as per rules applicable to the petitioaer and the same will be disbursed to the petitioner in due course oftime. 3. In view of the above submission, leamed counsel appearing fw Ihe petitioner submits that nothing survives for adjudication in tliis pstition. However, the respondents may be directed to take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. 4. Having resard to fhe aforestated submissions made by leamed counsel for the State as well as for the petitioner, nothing survives for /j^,/') adjudication. However, in view of the facts situation of the ca»,the , respondents may consider the ease of the petitioner as aforestated, as early as possible, preferably within a period ofthree moHtfas from th& ; date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 5. Accordmgly, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anrit