w^ L: '% BEPORE THE''9'HOMtBL'E HIOH GOTOT QP C,»<?_.,XTX_, BILASpOR_. W.p.Ko. • -^-."~<-^ • •2003 pe'titi,@a@r Reapondents ,^.< -^^.^. .<l-:&^^"" t.^>^?-.^; ^ ^. \^ <e' <- " <'<..':"'.'- $ A^%< 'Bagade aged 61 yeart^ S/o Late Ana.nt Ra®Bagade, / Retlred Dy.Superintendent of Pblic@<> D&stt. Police OffAee... Durg,. presenfc Aaare's®» 34/14 Motilal Nehrunegar Phon®• 2357826. Tahsil and Difitt. DORG (C.G«) (West. Ver®u<s 1< State! Oovta of ChhattA^arfe Through «» e »e Seeretary, Ho^^ Deptt^ D^KoS^ eha^'an Raipyr• 2< Direetor GeneraX of Poliae police H,Q« Chhattiegarh Raipur (G,0.), 3. State Govt* of Madhya Pradesh %rouQ-h " "R-ie Secretary (Home) vallaS3hmia^an, BHOPAt,, 4e Birector General of police Polic®Sea<3 Qosrter, KiOPAL » 5« Senior Superinteiadent of IPoUce' DlStt. Polic^ GtftG®,WRG (C.G.) ~6» Sanjay SfeukXa Addition®!StaperiRt®n«3®nt -of isolic®, Bllaspar. ,T. Shri K<K. NagwanSi, Depiaty Saperlnt®R<3entof PoUce^ C/o P©lleeKead' Qiaarter, BHO&AL • contd,..^ 8S 2 $t N%IT_?ETIT20N UNBER ARTICLS 226/227 0?> 1W CONSTTTOTION OP INDIA, -=f~ XI-HC.22 3?1^?F'^T f<^i5b ^i^? sb^icb <it^a '</'-L ~S^ ^14l<rt^, ^xiiwi<5, fa<rtwy 3ff^T 'q^? •p .NO •'sr&r/o^. •^(-200 W^^tt ^hNlch '^re^sr' ffl^T ^n^r ^<ro^ ^i^a 11.02.2004 Shri R^ 5. Shrivastava, Shri Ranbir Siagh, Gk>v^. The petitioner has 226/227 of fhe Gonstitiition| person junior to him i.e, Res^ post of Additional Supermt( iguormg the claim of the was also junior to tiim was gi^ petitioner was not considere4 reprcscntations to tiiis cfFcct| / respondeilt No, 1 niay bc dir^< petltioner froin fhe date whenj grant revised pay scale of Rs| scale of Rs. 12,650/- Learaed counsel for petitioner has. raade several considered by fhe respondent that fhe petitioner inay b <*t^<il"i 'RP^f^ fe^t 1^^R ifr3iP?RaiI^T cJDunsel for fhe petitioner. Advocate, for fhe State. pre|ferred fhis petttton under Artrcle of India on the ground ffaiat the |)ondent No.6 was promoted to the fendent of PoUce on 23.05.2001 pet|tioner aad respondent No,7, who gi^en revised pay scale, whereas the for ttie same. He made several ^ dirdctcd but to no avail. Thcrcforc:, thc to give thc proxxiotion to thc respondent No.6 was given and to 10,000/~ aad thereafter fhe pay- ^he petitioner subniits that fhe ^epresentations but fhat were not ^.uthorities. Therefore, he subniits aUowed to inake a detailed 4- T XI-HC-22 ^in^T^T R-iich 3Tlt?T 5b*iich 'y(^a '^•(r '<To? "^(rai^PT, ^Til^<i<o, T®l<rtw^< 3?I^T MW^tl ^bHlcb M 2003 •I^ST' I^T 3TR^[^<(IW ^fea representation to fh.e counsel has no objection. Haviag heard the leai^ havmg regard to fhe facts ai|id petitioner is allowed to make his grievaaces wifhin ten daj aad m tum, respondent No.2| of fhe petitioner shall decide of three months from the respc^adente, to which learaed State dfete objective niaaner in accordan^e Witihi tiic abovc dii^ctioil / Consequently, I,A, N0^ also stands disposed of. Certified copy as per Rij|les <t»l<it<n<ilvi NW<A 4 fe<<! iR'i^.K ^ ^Pa^ 331^51 aed cozinsel for fhe parties aad circunistaiices of tlie case, the i detaUed representation raisitig aU ^s. from today to respondent No.2 after considermg all the grievaaces the representatiou wiftim a period of rcceipt of the saine m ao. 'e wifti law, ., tlic pctition stands disposcd of. 10,221/2003 for urgcnt hcaring Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tft^ ^Rsi^ %y