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

Arun Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 25 Wa/29/2020 ... on 6 February, 2020

                                           1

                                                                                  NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPS No. 10288 of 2019

    Arun Kumar Sharma S/o Ramsharan Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Near
     Shiv Mandir , Vidhya Nagar, Bilaspur , Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department
      Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur , Distt. Raipur
      Chhattisgarh...

   2. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The Secretary Water Resources
      Department, Mantralaya, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

   3. Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Raipur Distt. Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

   4. Chief Engineer Hasdeo Kachhar, Water Resources Department , Bilaspur, Distt.
      Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

   5. Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Bilaspur , Division Kota ,
      Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Beenu Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 06/02/2020

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only limited prayer in this petition is to decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-6. It is stated that the petitioner was suspended on 30.05.1994 and the suspension was revoked on 18.06.2000 and he was reinstated and during the enquiry minor 2 penalty was imposed. It is further stated that from 1994 to 2000 the deducted wages may be given to the petitioner as per the law.

3. Considering the limited prayer made, without entering into the merits of this case, the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. Since the representation Annexure P-6 is dated 13.11.2018, the petitioner is given liberty to make afresh representation before the concerned respondent within a period of three weeks from today which shall be decided within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu