Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 12]

Chattisgarh High Court

Sanjay Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Wps/776/2018 ... on 22 January, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                          1

                                                                            NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPS No. 748 of 2018

        Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Kamluram Sahu Aged About 41 Years,
        Batch No. 59, Posted As A Constable In The 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh
        Armed Forces Koshmi Post Khalashi Tahsil Keshkall Kondagaon, District
        Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).

                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Home Department Mahanadi Bhavan, New
        Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

     2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Chhattisgarh Raipur, District
        Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

     3. Commandant Dantewada, 9th Batalian, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces
        Dantewada District Dantewada (Chhattisgarh).

     4. Company Commander Dantewada, 9th Batalian, Chhattisgarh Armed
        Forces Karli Dantewada, District Dantewada (Chhattisgarh).

                                                                  ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 22/01/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made a representation before the respondents No. 2 and 3 for grant of promotion from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable which is pending consideration since 14.07.2017 and has not been decided till date.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Be that as it may, the said authorities are directed to consider and 2 decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner would also be at liberty to make additional representation before the respondent authorities, if any.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka