Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23691 (CHH)

Sunil Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh

WPS/3668/2017 · 2025-02-13

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.1 of 2 2025:CGHC:7801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3668 of 2017 Sunil Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri S.N. Shrivastava, Aged About 53 Years Supervisor Grade-III In The Office Of Deputy Milk Commissioner, Integrated Dairy Development Project Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Pashudhan Vikash, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Of The Pashudhan Vikash, Directorate Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 13 . 02 .202 5 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s representations (Annexure-P/06) for redressal of his grievance is still pending consideration before the respondents, which may be directed to be decided within a reasonable time. 3. Be that as it may, the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider petitioner’s pending representation within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order strictly in accordance with law by SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.02.14 10:53:32 +0530 Page No.2 of 2 passing reasoned and speaking order. However, the petitioner is also at liberty to file additional documents, if any, in his support for redressal of this grievance, which the respondents shall also consider while deciding petitioner’s claim. 4. With aforesaid direction, liberty and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if