$auw @m‘am’i TN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I—I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR 2})”3 ‘J‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No. OF 2008 § I District — Raigarh, (C.G. ) ¢k é\199\9 a %}." Sub- Divisionai $9? Officer,(Revenue), Raigarh, (C.GI) Raigarh, District— N 3. Tahsiidar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,(C.G.) 4. Revenue Inspector, Pusaur, District Raigarh, (C.G.) 5. Vinod Dubey, Kanoongo, Tahsil Office, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA ? PETITIONER Ginesh Kumar Thawait,S/o Shri Kirti Lal Thawait, aged about 38 years, Occupation- Service, R/O Village- Basanpali, Tahsil- Gharghoda, District— Raigarh, (c.G.) V E R S U S RESPONDENTS 1, State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raigarh, HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR @ WRIT PETITION (S! No. 2244 of2008 PETITIONER : Dinesh Kumar 'I‘hawait. RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Amg J. Present: Shri AV.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the Statelrespondants 1 t0 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter > is heard Iinally. Leamed counsel appearing for the peiitioner submits that the petitioner, posted as Patwan' at Patwari Halka No. 30, Basnapali, Tahsil. Ghatghoda, Distn‘ct Raigarh, was absent horn duties on account ofhis illness non: 1.4.2006 to 4.5.2006. The petitioner could not obtain leave prior to remaining absent on account of his health problem. The petitioner thereafter made an application for grant of leave alongwith medical certificate issued by the Chairman District Medical Board, Raigarh (Annexure PM). The petitioner was permitted to join his duties by order dated 26.09.2006 leaving the question of gant of leave, to be decided later on. Though, the petitioner was permitted to join,“ but no place was specified as to where the petitioner should join, either in the office of the Revenue Inspector or at any Patwari Halka, as by order dated 25.04.2006 (Amexure P/l), one Jagdish Gupta, Patwari of Patwari Halka No. 24 was ordered to look atter the work of Patwari VERSUS Shri Awadh Tripalhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19”; day of January, 2010) leave. respondents l to 4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner could not join his duties for want of specific place of posting, the respondent authorities are directed to intimate the petitioner forthwith the place of his work and where he has to join, as it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the leave application of the petitioner is under consideration. The respondent authorities may consider the leafze application of the petitioner after granting place of posting to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. In View ofthe foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. A p S&A’g"‘“0‘ri \7 d, W ,x \ x K‘ \ Halka No. 30 (Aurda) where the petitiener was posted prior to going on On quexy, the State counsel is not in a position to specify asto at what place the petitioner was required to give his joining as there is no avennents in the retum dated 29.772008, filed on behalf of the SatiSh ,x/ / judge