W.P.No.5260/2010 14.02.2014 Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which nothing much is said except that the petitioner was posted as Joint Director (Finance) under the control of respondent No.3.
He was relieved to join the services on his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur.
Certain earned leaves were sanctioned to him.
A direction was issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Additional Director.
The allegations are made that the interim stay was granted by this Court in the matter of eviction of petitioner from Government quarter.
Nothing is said in the writ petition whether the petitioner is performing any duty in any department and is entitled to any salary from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
On what count, the petitioner has been harassed, is not clear.
From the record of the Registry, it is found that on certain occasions the writ petitions were filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the Constitutional validity of certain provisions of M.P.Reorganisation Act, 2000.
On two occasions, a Division Bench of this Court has declined to entertain such writ petitions.
Subsequently, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking payment of certain amount and the said writ petition was considered and dismissed by this Court.
Unsuccessful writ appeal was filed by the petitioner.
This indicates that in fact the petitioner has involved himself in the litigations before this Court and, as such, the allegation that he has been harassed by the authorities of the respondents for which he is entitled to compensation cannot be accepted.
This Court while dismissing the Writ Petition No.5943/2009(s) on 28.7.2010 filed by the petitioner has recorded certain facts relating to the dismissal of writ appeal of the petitioner with costs against certain orders passed in the writ petition earlier filed and this indicates that the petitioner is a busy bird, involved in the meaningless litigation in the Court.
This being so, no case is made out to entertain the writ petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed without notice to the other side.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.