Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2015WPS/7443/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought reallocation of services from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh. Court permitted withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to make representation to competent authority, which must decide independently without court influence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to make representation. Court direction to competent authority to decide representation independently.

Mukesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION IS) N0. 7^)0 / 2010

¶3

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA ;

¶4

^^w
^wL°S'W
^'"

¶5

AND

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF CHHATTISGARH CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1966;

¶7

AND BETWEEN :

¶8

PETITIONER ^' Mukesh Kumar Soni, son of Late Shri Gauri Shankar Keshri, aged about 47 years, presently posted as Progress Assistant, Directorate of Veterinary Services, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry), Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

RESPONDENTS l^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the v (a) Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal Husbandry), D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh I Jb) Secretary, General Administrative

¶11

1 Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya,Raipur, Chhattisgarh ,2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the (a) Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (b) Secretary, General Administrative Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 3. Director, Directorate of Veterinary r: Services, Opposite Guru Tek Bhadur

¶12

r: i^ Amrito OSs, ate

¶13

Garden, G.E. Road, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
^- Director, Directorate of Veterinary
Services, Vaishali Nagar, Kamdehnu
Bhawan,Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pension (Department of Personnel
and Training) 3rd Floor Lok Nayak
Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-03

¶14

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THENATURE OFMANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS

¶15

^ ^

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

SB: HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER. J

¶19

WRIT PETITION (Sl No. 7443 of 2010

PETITIONER

Mukesh Kumar Soni

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶25

Shri Amrito Das counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

ShriAdil Minhaj PLfor the State/respondents No. 1(a) (b) and 3. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava counsel for respondents No. 2 (a) (b) and 4.

¶27

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, counsej for respondent No. 5.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(03.03.2015)

¶30

Substantive pp3t of the petitioner is Progress Assistant in the Veterinary Department. After formation of State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 7.9.2002 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner being the State cadre employee of the State bf Chhattisgarh his services were finally allocated thereto. However, being permanent resident of State of Madhya Pradesh the petitioner filedan application before the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the State of Chhattisgarh for his reallocation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Though initially consent was given by both the States butvide order impugned (Annexure P-1) passed in the month of July, 2010 his request was turned down by the State of Chhattisgarh for his allocation to the State of Madhya Pradesh and it is this orderwhich is under challenge in this petition.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage the petitioner

¶32

-2-

¶33

may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to make a representation before respondent No.5. He also prays for a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation in accordance with law.

¶34

Counsel for the respondents submit that period for making such representation by the employee is already over and now the petitioner cannot be allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh.

¶35

Bethalas it'may, as the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petitipn, he is permitted to do so. On representation, if any, made by the petitioner, it would be entirely for the competent authority to act in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. ;

¶36

Petition is thus dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty and direction as above. ^^^^ £ —

¶37

Sd/pritinker Diwaker Judge

Mukesh Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Soni 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

Abdul Allem Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jeevan Rekha Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pushpendra Diholiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Kant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Bharosa Sahu Vs The State Government Of C.g. And Ors.

S.c. Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.