^" (. ^'s OF AT CJ»& SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. !.C.C.No.39of2003 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Principa! Secretary, Schoo! Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur (Chhattlsgarh) 2. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Sarkanda, tNutan Coiony Chowk,. BIIaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Asstt. Dlrector, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Sarkanda, Nutan Cofony Chowk, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4. Principai, Natwar, Govemment Multi Purpose Higher Secondary Schoo!, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Versus Anant Kumar Mishra, aged about 68 years, S/o Late Vigyan Bhikshuk Mishra, Goushala Talab, near Ganesh Tatab, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) fo'r Revlew ofthe Order 27.11.2002 In Wrjt Present: Shri NKAgrawai, iearned Deputy Advocate General for the State / applicants. ?\sone for the respondent. ORDER (27th Augyst, 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by CJ. On due conslderatlon, MCP No.47/2005 is aitowed and the deiay in filing the Review Petition is hereby condoned. 2) Shri NKAgrawai, iearned Deputy Advocate Genera! forthe State is heard on admission. 3) The petltioners are seeking review of order dated 27.11.2002 passed inWrit Petition No.88/2002. /f^\ ^' ^. padma 4) Respondent - Anant Kumar IViishra flled the writ petition for a dlrection to the respondents to pay gratuity and pension in respect of his son - Sanjay Kumar Mishra, who died sn hamess. 5) The iearned Singie Judge vide impugned order dated 27.11.2002 has simply directed the petitioners, whc were respondents in the writ petition to take a declslon as eariy as possibie, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of the copy of the order on a representation belng filed afresh before respondents No.2 to 4. The Impugned order further stlpuEates that if any adverse order is passed, the petltioner be at iiberty to approach this Court again cha!!enging the sald order. 6) Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order does not decide the respondent's entitiement to get gratuity and pension in respect of his son - Sanjay Kumar Mishra. !n fact, the entire rnatter has been left open to be decided by the petstioners, the respondents in the writ petltion on the representation being made by the vvrit petitioner. 7) Wlth the above observatlon, the Revlew Petition stands disposed of. ____———-.. Sd/- §^/» i Sunil Kumar Sinha