SINfitt BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0^^"^ 2011 ^" . ' . . PETITIONER ^.^$^ ^ 6C>'^ Ramaswami Naidu, S/o. Krishnaswami Naidu, Aged 52 years Presently working as Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kawardha Division, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi-Godavari Kacchar, Raipur (C.G.) le Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sheonath Division, District-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFJljE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -HC—78 <3^T ^I f^N^ <T<STT W^I ?^"RW ^3Tz? '.qTqy^pqr, ^ff^FI^, f^crll^y ^»..^.£.C£1..,&.3..5.3 T?T^iT-^"qt^ W^?T T^'^F (^f^^T) •^200 SB ; HON'BLE MR. JUSfllCE PRITINKER DIWAKER 12.09.2011 Shri Vlvek Sharma., Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, pounset for the petitioner. ).L. for the respondents. The grievance of correct date of birth is service book the incorrectly as 30.12.1959} Learned counsel petitioner made a repre^ same has been dedded order dated 04.08.2011 that purpose offiling this! petitioner is permitted) representation before be directed to dedde the| in accordance with law. Learned State petitioner makes fresh respondent No.2 and objective manner. Accordingly the a direction to the ^T^nh ^pR'^rf ^f feczi ^^K ^<3tfm3Ti^T [the petitioner is that his 116.11.1960 whereas in his has been mentioned same fejr the petitioner submits the ^entation on 04.06.il but the |in a mechanical manner vide j(Annexure P-1). He submits Ipetition would be served if the to file a fresh detailed rest>ondent No.2who in turn may same in an objective manner couhsel has no objection if the 41etailed representation before the same is decided in an pre^ent petition is disposed of with petjtioner to file fresh detailed ^.J........ ^,^^^^^ /y^^ ^ ^ • ....... . T~ XI-HC—78 <3^T ^)T '^?TNT (T^TT a^?15CTW L HWWl ^KV^ 3^T ':-4pT[^n. ^TTJ:FTS, M<?TRT^T ..<^.'.f.:..CSJ£3.^3./(.(. ^200 W^T "q^F (1Gii^<^) representation before eventuality of filing ^r expected that the concerned authority in It is made clear any opinion on the merjts concerned wouid bei representation of the accordance with law aft^r sarfie a|n tltiat ^N'^^i^ ^i^T^fl ^r f^f if^^n: ^ ^tRT^f W^?[ jrespondent No.2 and in the |ny such representation It Is would be decided by the objective manner. this court has not expressed of the case and the authority at liberty to ctecide the tetjtloner on Its own merits in due scrutiny of thQ facts. Sd/- pritiBterOiwak<"' Judge