\ <^r^ IN 'SXSS 9IGK COURT QP JUDICWWiE «rB XLaSPBR (CHHM*FISG»Ba) HRIT PBTITIOH HD«'2-ll%-3 o? 2003 PBTITaOHBR ^ :^^v^' ^yy t Brijlal Qioiaabary. 8Q& Qti-°^e^->''l /^.Lu e^fiz^t^,'V<^ aged abeat ^'r .-^"w^ ', '.""._^"~~^'. • - ---. - ^§^y I .&ss4.staat<3rade-I.offlce o£ tbe •^'"?, / COBamissloner Aajinjai ,A@asi»ehAfc <3SLtA Picihaa varg Bvan Alp Sanlsbyak Kaiyan Vibhag.Raipur,(C.S.) ^•^;y.- y^'.^-" VB R S ff S ^-.s.o' ^ » 1. State ©£ca'ihattlsgarh, tbrougfe Secretary. Departmeat ef Aain tiaU.Aniasuehlt tetl PA^ifla varg Evan Alg Sankhyak Kalyan Vlbbag, (»ntral.ay,B.K.S«Bbawan, Raipur,DI.strlet-Bia.lpgE',(S.G. ) » 2. The Oaianl.ssioHer.^ln t^ti AauiBuediit jafcl plehda vairg Evan Alp SaaiKI'iyalt Kalyan 'vibtaag, l».lpur»tC.e») » 3» State©fOihattisgarb, threugh Sec!i?etary,p»W«&.,Hantralay, B.K .S.Bhawan,Ra.lpur, (C,G. ) » 4. The Eagineeri.ag-.t.n-Chief Departanent ef P.W«a,» Raipar,(c.s.) WlRrPPB'ra'EIORgiOBRAKEZCIfiS 226/227 OFTBBE , GOI®IITUTX©S0P ItiE>I&. XI-HC-22 sn^rqn Rlli.tl 3TI§W wiwgfer '3^?';211!iI?PT, ®tiU)'t6;ftwit+y, 3lT^FT?lq^'g? , [W-S'. (Oe ^z-M'B ? i-003 •Wt 200 •(INW1 fhWi SII^T TRITW'HtOT Shri Maiay- Kumar Bhaduri, 5hri P. E>as, Pariel Lawy< Respondents/ State, Hedrd both tfte counsei. iy this writ petition under of India the petitionet' has chalif P/3 dated 08-10-2002 and 07i r'espondents httd direc+ed the pe^ Adim Jati .Anusuchit Jati Pichdil Raipur. The mdin grievance of 'i+ie employee of Pufalie Works C'ept) Office of En9inser'in9-in-Chief, Pj at tiie time of bifurcation of -ttiel allocated to the State of the petitioner in ttie Public Worji llie Department of Adim Jati ^ -Sankhyak Vibhag, Raipur. Learned counsel for the p^ dction of the respondents the responaent No.l vide Annexure^- Chhatlt-is ^i*f1d<ilTi 'ttn^^ TS^ <f^(^l^ •^? 3if:i[>i an^ii ; lounse! for fne peti.tioner. r, takss notics on behalf cf -rfie lArticle 226/227 of the Consti-hjtion Inaed the orders Annexures P/2 and 11-2002 respectively, whereby i+ie ritioner to join in the bepar+ment-^f' Varg.Avam Alp Sankhyak Vibhag, petitiorier' is rfiqt crriginally he is an ;rTmenr and he was worteing in'the iblic Works bepartment, Bhopal and 5fate the petitioner's serviees were l-isgarh. However.instead of postint <s bepartment he Mos bean sent to lusuchiT Jati Plchdel Varg Avam Alp ititioner submitted that against this petitioner made representations to •P/5 and P/6 dated 30-11-2002 and pflt^ XI-HC-22 SII^I^I k-u* snlsi stili'sb 'Hftff t. :^-^ * ^•^igRT^'B^OTS.^^i^y ani^ "qa'^ \^-f'fr3&4 *<IHCTI it)*11<h \i_sia-^ M 20° sn^iTsnm^ffeT --2-. .^eai kiildl' sircums+bnces :pi*ese[ita 31-03-2003 respeetively and no respondents so far. Therefore, .submitt'ed that a direction may kir^cll decide the representations of the [j< Having heard learned cou( considered ,the facts and i's ditected to decide the r'epi'ese^ti period of 30 days jn an objeclji' decision taken on his reppesentatjon cgse representatjon of the pet) responden+s, the psti+ionef is al|o| within a period of i0 clays from •ft de^ide ''The saicf represenstarion t^ receipt of the repressntoition. With these observatiOtis. thel \fttrtiesareent!l-lecl forcerti-l cfecision has been taken by the edrned counsel for the petitioner ly be given to the respondents to etitioner at the ear'liest. isel for the parties and having of the coae.i respondent No.t itipns of the petitioner withiri a Ive manner and corr.municate' the to the pe-1'itioner. i-lowever, in <tiWl<'frfl-< a-IWdf'? ft^t <n!it(i< ^ srfStiT SII^T tioner is riot dvailable with the ivsd •to make fresh represen'hition .day ari3 the respondent No.l shal itfiin 30 days from ths date of writ petition fitahdsJdisposed of. isd copy of this gcdgr'^ Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge [•^•^f^