Allowed

Teekam Chand Tatiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2014WPS/6360/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 concerning a promotion dispute, the Chhattisgarh High Court discharged the matter without expressing an opinion on merits and directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and decide it expeditiously according to law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged; Respondents No.2 and No.3 directed to consider petitioner's representation and decide the case on merits.

Teekam Chand Tatiya Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

t^'

¶2

w^/

¶3

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION (Sl No. tf^lo^ QF 2014

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

^'^•-j(J 9^.W^:S^:"«^W sw

¶7

Teekam Chand Tatiya, aged about 56 years, S/o C.L.Tatiya, Presently posted as Inspector in the •€ Office of Superintendent of Police, Kanker, R/o Behind Ashoka Tower, Shankar Nagar , Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

State of Ctihattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station - Naya Raipur ,Naya Raipur 492 001 Chhattisgarh

¶12

Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, Through : The Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog, Raipur, Shanker
Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

Director General of Police,
Police Headquarters Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Inspector General of Police
(Administration) Police Headquarters, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Inspector General of Police, Bastar
Range, Lalbag Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh 494001

¶15

^" 6. Superintendentof Police, North Bastar, Kanker, District, North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Superintendent of Police, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh'

¶17

'•
^
WRIT_ UNDER„. ARTICLE.__ 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR
ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF, MANDAMUS,
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR
DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE

¶18

The petitioner state as under:

¶19

¶20

^SET^RRP?, •©^RPI?,

¶21

^?ri^y*.6'..^.?.^.Q//4—"^Fl20]l

¶22

|3fK5[q>llcfiM>
dSff3n^£stt*f|?Ec{(gR^f|<i3n^»|| |---|---|---| |wa<
^ ^F|S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PR
05.12.2014
Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, cour
Shri Prasoon Bhaduri,G.A. fc
an
Grievance ofthe petitioner is
promotion to the post of Deputy-
same has not been done on the
order has been issued againstthe pi
Counsel for the petitioner
petition would be served if at this
withdraw this petition with liberty
before respondent No.2 and 3
directed to considerthe case ofthe
While referring to the
State caunsel that perhaps the
petitioner because of some
government-against the petitioner.
the case of the petitioner is
keepingin view the relevant rules,
petitioner.
The petitioner is permitted tc^
aforesaid liberiiy.ln the eventuality 01
the petitioner before respondent N
along with the copy ofthis order itTj
authorityto consider and decide ttiei
Si

)
su

l
pleadii
prpt
acticf
I
consi

^{S/f-T,'2BI.t-2,BO,OOa-}
<<|jsel
fr
tl
TINKERDIWAKER
forthe petitioner.
the State.
^hat ^{though he is entitled for his}
jiperintendent of Police but the
^round that some punishment
^titioner.
timits that purpose of filing this
itage he may be permitted to
gto file detailed representation
in turn the respondents be
^etitioner;
^gs it has been argued by the
notion has been denied to the
n being
taken
by the
State
pe however has no objection if
Uered in accordance with law
[eligibility and suitability of the
r.
withdraw this petition with the
[filing a fresh representation by
(o.2 and 3'detailing his claim
^ expected from the competent
[representation ofthe petitioner|

's 10

:dir la\ ,ply ;ne

ff^^/f' K ^

•K l'%.-.. 'Si 'uia-a

¶27

3%[ ^{ret5P[, @-feF{?, '&elRfgl

¶28

Hwvii s!b*ii°bj£yA..6. ^.

¶29

SiN^t Ma-ft { ^^^i

¶30

sngg^ii&"ti* tWTsn^aanHi	@WW^%tT3fl^t	icitn'fed^Rttisit ^iaiRnsnSl
	in accordancewith law. It is made clear that this (]	ourt has not expressed any
	opinionon the merits ofthe case ancj	itwould befor the respondent
	No.2 and 3 to decide the samel	in accordance with law as
	expeditiously as possible.	S(l//- PritinkerDiwaker Judge

¶31

'iiR^te ®niaa,wgi- Fs/i-mott-z.oo.ooo.

¶32

•<»

¶33

Teekam Chand Tatiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teekam Chand Tatiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Ors.

Vishwanath Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Basant Kumar Joshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hemant Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Savitri Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.