mHuggygqgwymymuu77/ ’yww/u ‘ v m iHL a n:E xa{‘FJ COURT OF DHKJE PRAQDEH R JABAIPUR. «k S N MISC. ?9tlt10n NO. ”\\ ‘ @hmau §mc§ (5w!§ Egcitioner :’- Bashishtha Lal, aged about 53 yedrs, ' 0f. Late Shrl B. D. Lal, Occupatlon He Master, I. E. M. 3chool, North Jahgma Khand Cobliery, Sarg‘uja, resident of Tahsil Manendragarh, ‘Disf. Sarguj ‘a. VerSUE ondents :— ' 1. The 3tate af Madhya‘ wradesh throug n h“ . aecretary’ school mLCniuon Depart'n ru W f t,“ boverrment Qf Madhya r’radesh Val labh —Eha wan , Bh Opa l . The Commissioner, @ublic Irstruct’icms GQVernnent Of Madnya Pradesh, OppOsi Gandhi Medleal College, Bhowoalh» The Joint Director, Public Instructio Sarguja (Ambikapur). Sing‘ni Collieries mucation Laociatv, Jhagra Khan§ Area, P O. South Jhag Kham Sarguja. (M P )h The Secretary, $irghi, Collieriés Ea‘uc / tion Society, Jhagré Khani afea, Pd South qhagra Khand, Sarguja. (M.P.)r? _etition under articles 226 ani 227 of the i Conqtitution 01: Imiia. \v ‘ \ k 2:‘ a‘ af x l ,‘ t' ns r i a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Wn't Peatmn No. 197 of 1991 Bashishtha Lal Versus . Petiu‘oner Respondents The State of Madhy I sh/“(110w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 85 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Chhattisgarh) 65 others (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) D. Badgainya and Shri D. R. Shanna, Senior Advocate with Shn' B. Ms Anita Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Shxi P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shn' P. S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondents No. 4 and 5. ORDERgman (Passed on this 1 1th day of March, 20 10) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to promou'on since the year 1982. The petin'oner has made various representau‘ons to the Concerned authority which are pending cons further submits that since the representations are pending consideration before the concerned authority, the petitioner this matter on merits. However, the respondents/ authorities may be directed to consider and decide the representations, in accordance with law. 2. I Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 submits that if the representations are pending the same shall in accordance with law. However, be considered and decided king to the nature of dispute, it may be just and expedient to direct the petitioner to hie afresh rep ideration. Learned counsel does not want to contest loo resentation, raising his / a s grievance, which may be considemd and concerned authority, in accordance with law. 3. In View of the above,'fhe petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may Ee a mSh representation, if so advised, raising his grievance, which may be considered and decided by the concerned authority, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period ofrfour weeks non) the date of receipt of the representation. No order asto costs. Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge x