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 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramayan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2015

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                         1

                                                                               NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPS No. 2768 of 2015

   • Ramayan Yadav S/o Shri S.L. Yadav Aged About 41 years Working As ASI
     (M) Under Office Of S.P. Mungeli, R/o Ward No. 12, Indrapuri Nagar, P.S.
     Chakarbhata, Tifra, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                      Versus

   1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police
      Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

   2. The Superintendent Of Police District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)

   3. The Joint Director, Treasuries Accounts And Pension, District- Bilaspur
      (Chhattisgarh)

   4. The District Treasury Officer, District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                  ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/08/2015

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties would submit that the matter has already been considered by this Court in WP(S) No.4523/2014 (Francis Xavier Beck and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters) and WP (S) No.1975/2015 (A.P. Tripathi and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters) and final orders have been passed in the said matters on 03.07.2015 and 16.07.2015 respectively, therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) and A.P. Tripathi (supra).

2. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the 2 parties, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) and A.P. Tripathi (supra).

Sd/-

JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ashu