HIGH COURT OF’CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1093 of2009 Dharamdas Laskar, s/o Guha Ram, aged about 42 years, working as attendant, Veterinary Dispensary, Boida, Block Pali, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Veterinary Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Veterinary Services, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Dy. Director, Veterinary Services, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ Respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 08 day of September, 2009) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as Swchchakar in the omce of respondent No. 3. The respondent No.3 , vide its order dated 12m May, 1999 (Annexure P/2), gamed regular pay scale to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. However, the same was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 09th February, 2000 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No. 4. Being aggieved by the above order, one Vishnu Prasad Dahire filed a petition being Writ Petition I 1 (S) No. 3264 of 2005 (Vishnu Prasad Dahire v. State ofMa&:ya Pradesh ir Others) before this Ceurt and the sagewas allowed vide order dated 28 th I s July: 2006 (Annexure P/4) and he was held entitled fox regular pay scale w.e.f. 12‘“ May, 1999. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant petition may also be disposed of in terms of order passed in the matter of Vishnu Prasad Dahz're (supra). On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in case the petitioner files representation against his grievances, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in terms ofthe order passed in the case of Vishnu Prasad Dahire (supra). In View of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 3. raising all his gievances raised in this petition. On such representation being made, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in terms ofthe order passed in Vishnu Prasad Dahire (supra) expeditiously. } Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge t ~ y f l \ £ .