@ c2? WQ/ mm @E'MH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.I WRIT PETITION (S! NO. éL‘ (5 § /2010 PETITIONER Pila Das @ Pila Ram Anant S/o Rupau Das Satnam1 Aged about 39 years R/o Vlllage— Bahunawagaon, Tahsll— Bemetara, Dist.- Durg {C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS lgtate of Chhattisgarh Through— Secretary, Urban Administration and ’ Development Department, D K S Bhawan Ralpur [C G I 2 Ch1ef Mun1c1pal Officer Nagar Paahka Parlshad Bemetara, Distt.— Durg [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE M“ WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS 3K , "If * I! \ ‘1-\ 1 Liam??? 31-}: x \ J" ‘\ ~ ¢ XI—HC—78 my?” '1 mzw‘" mm W?(§)N6é45§/% 260 Mm (Wu) WWW mmm ‘ 'mwwa‘wzraw Wmm . $M§mm 9r 3.3: HQNBLE JUST!CE &R. FRET NKER D§WAKER 12-11‘2010: Shri DR. Patel, counsel fan the petiticner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, PL fort Sfateirespondents No. 1 to 3. h Grievance of the petii‘mne is that iniiiaily era 30.04.1989 he wag appointed as a daily wag s empioyee and ihereafter his services wea'e terminated an 114.2006 aiong wiih severa! ether empioyws. Furtha case Gf ihe etiiionef §s é'ha'i in the year 20618 We p&titi0ner aioag wéth ather en‘pioyees was re-instated, however, getétisna i$ mi baing permitt ’m perfarm his duties whereas eimi\ar!y situated pereene have submitted by the pettttemer that is atee pendtng. Ceuneet fer the petttiener ubmite thet, at thte stage, he may be permitted t9 Withdraw the pi’e ent petition with liberty te ttte fresh representation before the respo dent 2. He hewever eebmits that direction may be tesued te the said reependent fer deciding hie representatien expedétiouety‘ State eeuneet has ne obte tien if the petitteeer makee a fresh teetesentettee and the same is being decided in ecooirdanee with Accordingiy, the eetition r is petmitteci t0 withdrew this petitien Withtheiiberty as ate: Said. in the eventuaiity of makiitg n {eguiatizeei it hae aiee beee is teeteeentatien (Annexwe P—5} ‘ " s . e e Wm W290 WW (Wm Wmfm wmm wwwfu'fsvjm ”2r— $Wan€w fresh representatian by the getiii aner withm a perisd of one menth fmm the date of receipi of copy of this erder, the same wculd be decided by the respondent No. 2 within a further peried sf ‘awo months. It is made clear rhat this Ocurt has not expreseed any opinion on mer%te m’ the case and the authority concerned woukj be ei riberw i0 decide the reeresentation in accordance with iew. WWW Prit'mker Diwaker ‘ / Judge