w 's' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESeARH AT BILASPUR. •^s-. WP[S] No^.:.../2011 Petitioners: ^ ^^c^- <^^v-"" ^^•ll" Balram Prasad Upadhyayg, S/o Late 6.P. Upadhyaya Aged about 54 years, R/o 1-1-67, Imgation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Raipur C)ist, C& State. ^•'^ •o ^•-'' Vs Respondents: 1. State of C.6. Through: Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of CG, &KS Bhawan, Raipur. CG State. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur. C6 State. '3. Chief Enginesr, Water Resources Oepartment, Raipur, CG State. WRrLPETITrON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITSfSI OR&ERfSI DIRECTIONrSI ETC. TST ^wwi, ®fl).a'i<o,fsKyiiyy ^.....^.^...^&.i.f.ll.. sn^T Tra% (lici^ai<(!Et) 311^1 ^Tl^lN? '(Wian^rgmw ^<nw flf^r SII^T ^c <S" SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha •iS-QS-a.QVl Advbcate bi/ pet-iod filAi Shri K.R.Nair and Ms. Veena Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy on advance copy. This petition has been filed of his annual increment, from the service after appointment in the posl scale. Eariier, the petiiioner had his grievances with regard to his ci< this writ petition. On 10/1 1/08, this | the representation of the petitione^, possible, preferabiy within a period 4 representation. it has been averrefd was passed by the Court, the increments to the petitioner, inspite) the order passed by the Court. Though, there is no averme^it rejectionof the representation, lear(i Annexure P/9, the representation of stated that the representation of th^ 8/5/09. Having preferred a represet the petitioner could not ciaim graj correctness and validitv of order serious defects on this account andl Nair, counsel for ttie petitioner. General for the State / respondents 't)l'llf<-('il-l •qilRff •^'fs^t ^RR^R ^rsffiiHan^T Shrivastava.J. the petitioner aggrieved by non-release od, jthe petitioner compieted one year of of Lower Division Clerk in a regular pay a writ petition before this Court raising iim for annuai increment as prayed for in Court directed the respondents to decide in accordance with taw, as early as if three months from the date of receipt of in the writ petition that after the order •espondents have not granted annual of representation submitted pursuant to in the writ petition with regard to the led Deputy Advocate General referred to the petitioner wherein the peiitioner has petitioner was rejected vide order dated rtation and sufrered an order of reieciion, rt of increment, without chalienging the dated 8/5/09. The petition suffers from is not maintainabie. ' d g '•:'S^s^y '^ fi' '^sy .s ^t XI-HG—78 'TST "iliqitl'4, SfllytS', f^dl'i-l^'!, SII^FI Tra^? ('i'fid'l'S?) sn^y 'sei (t;-ii+ ^sn ^n^T^rqt^ {& Oeepti 1'0 petitioner to take appropriate steps( increments. qiraT<vi<iii ~v^f if^^t T^iR^R ^aiRmsn^T The petition is therefore dis|nissed, however, reserving liberty to the in case, the petitioner is inclined to ciaim Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge |]ji->li..«is,