HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J1’ & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.C.C. N0. 51 0f 2G04 ‘ i ' AgQiicatien far Review of the Grder dated 22-8-2003 gassed in Writ Petition No.99 of 2W2 f Present : Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate forthe State/petitioner. (2nd sgpi:e%§e§ 2003) i The foiiowing order of the Court wes passed by Dajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sumesh Baiaj, learned Govt. Advocate for the i Statelpetitioner is heard on admission. i The petitioner} state, respondent No.2 in writ petition i i No.99/2002 has filed this petition for review of the order dated i 22.08.2003. ”5 r AFPELLANTSI State of Chhattisgarh through Its APPLECANT Secretary, General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. I Versus V. NON APPLICANTS 1. Akhiiesh Prasad Tiwari, Sfo Late 3RE3§0NBENTS Kanhaiya Prasad Tiwari, R/o C/‘o Mukund Bat Vidhya Mandir Vihar, Sarkanda, District Biiaspur, i i Chhattiegarh i 2. M.P.S.R.T.C. through its Chairman‘ i Bhopat, Madhya Pradesh. ' )t‘ 3) The writ petition med by respondent No.1 Akhilesh Prasad Tiwari was disposed of by the ‘earned Singie Judge vide order dated 22.08.2003 in the foliowing terms. considered the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any epinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court ends of justice wiii be served if the petitioner is permitted to make a detaiied " representation afresh aiong with a copy of this petition within a month from today before the competent authorityirespondent and on such representation being flied, the 'sarne shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as early as possibie preferably within three months from the date of receipt of representation after hearing the petitioner. if any adverse order is passed, the petitioner may avaii remedy available under the law. With the direction aforesaid this petition is disposed of " 4) As the above ducted impugned order has not decrded the entitlement of respondent No.1 Akhilesh Prasad Tiwari for compassionate appointment and the respondents were only directed to consider his representation in accordance with law, we do not find any ground warranting review of the order dated 22.08.23. 00 fails and is hereby dismissed " ‘ Having wit 5) The review petition, therefore, Sdl— K‘n“ r Snih Sund Judge / .