Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Kumar Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh 20 Wps/4982/2018 ... on 6 August, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 3636 of 2018
Krishna Kumar Jangde S/o Shri Iswari Prasad Jangde, Aged About 42
Years Working As Sub Inspector (Telecommunication/ Wireless) At
Divisional Police Telecommunication/ Wireless Office, Jagdalpur, Civil
And Revenue District Baster (Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director General Of Police, Raipur, Police Head Quarter Raipur,
Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Telecommunication/ Wireless)
Raipur, Police Head Quarter Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue District
Baster Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate. For State : Shri Mazid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/08/2018
1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in this petition is with regard to the seniority of the petitioner which is reflected in the gradation list (Annexure P/2) showing his seniority as on 01.04.2007.
2. According to the petitioner he was appointed on 27.06.2009 whereas in the gradation list his date of appointment is shown as 16.09.2013, which is erroneous and if proper date of appointment is reflected then perhaps the petitioner would stand much ahead in the gradation list than what is presently reflected. He submits that the petitioner has made a detailed representation in this regard to the respondents, but the same also stands undecided till date.
2
3. Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this court is of of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. Rather, ends of justice would meet if this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. It is ordered accordingly.
5. In addition to the representation already made, the petitioner would also be at liberty, if he so choses, to file a fresh representation for ventilating his grievance. While deciding the representation, it is expected that the respondent authorities would take note of the actual date of appointment of the petitioner which is of the year, 2009.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder