IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BII.iASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT 'PETITION N0< ^^>3 OP 2002» PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ..^^ ^y^.^ ^:>^^y ^ ^ ^•^ Smt^ UrvajErs^i» w/o i Shri Mahendra gatnaxnj.y aged ahout 30 years» JR/O o Village Kunda> Teh^ pandariya^ Distt <» Kawardhao V E R S Ui!S 1 ^^§tafee! lof chhattisgarhr through i Secretory» Panchayat CommtAHity welfare Departmerrfc; Mantr^layat JD «K<,S » Bhowant Raipusr (chhatti.sgarh) , i ; ' . '. • . . :" 2# commissloner> Raipur> Diivisjion» Raipur (chhattisgarl 3^ colleator Kawardhai Distt;«Kawardha(C.G»), - 4^ Sub-Da.visJLonal Offlcer. (Revenue) pandariya» Bistty. KaWaJErdha (C<G») » f 5, Smt^ Anjor^LiBait Sarpanch Gram jpanchasfQt, Makri, Janpa<a p^anc Qyat» pandariya» yccU3^^ ^i^. ^-2-<^-/ 2-^7'°^-s^-<- D.istty Kawajfdha (C^©<»)^ '3^v-<^\< <Y oy *fPfC?T^*TT^ ^Ef 'F<<1<IK9<1, t»tTtxi<l<?,RrtK-iy^ *^.f. s^ S-oj/07__ 3n^^Tq?rRprra? ^raT31T^$T^WF 3ff^9T q^F (lcl^c)<^) ^200 ?^IT<f?^Tf^T3n^<T 6590/20p5 14.9.2005 Petitioner by Misi Respondents No. lawyer. Heard. I.A.NO. 6591/2C1 allowed. Necessary amc petitlon. I.A.NO. docuinents on rccord record, The petitioner 226/227 of fhe Cons^ dated 5.11.2000 (Aa4i (Annexure P/3), order) order dated 22.1.20021 was reinoved from Paachayat, Makri, Ji Kawardha. In fhe meantfcmej fhe petitioner, fhiat res( has been passed by fl^< has been resolved to Paiichayat Karmi (Sec^ the Chief Executive <pi<<Ico<I)i ^i+ioY^fl^^l ^RK-^K ^3yf^T3TI^?T SharniUa Siaghai, Advocate. 1 to 4 by Shri Vivek Sharoaia, Panel 05, appUcation for aaiendiaent is ^ndment be carried out ia fhe memo of i, appUcation for takiag additional ib allowed. The documeats be taken on l|ias filed fhis petition under Article ^tution of India impugniag the order 4exure P/l), order dated 19.12.2000 [dated 27.3.2001 (Annexurc P/4) and (Annexure P/5), whereby fhe petitioner post of Paachayat Kamii of Gram ipad Paachayat, Paadana, District - thle it was infomied by learaed counsel for |»lutk>ndated 16,3.2005 (Annexurc P/6) t^e Gram Panchayat, Makri, whereby it |Bke back fhe petitiorier ia service as (etary). Pursuaat to the said resolution pcer, Jaapad Panchayat, Paadaria vide Of|6cer, SP/FS/200& XI-HC-78 ^T^I ^iiqirt^/^icyiwKff/Kkom^ <-o. p. \>AQ- 5~oj J o'Z_ «ii*i<^rs^m^ W^ 200 w^^T^rf^ra? ?TqT3T[^9T!TOte ^V<0^^ ; ^ y^" ^ Q lsfc ^ 9IT^5T<=R^ (yigq^) ?^TWr^rf^T3H^^T -7- memo dated 26.5.2005 (j Gram Paachayat, Ma| immediately m service w| Learaed counsel f<| tiie resolution dated <ft»^io<nTi+i!^oi'^rf^^ ^Ri^ix ^srf^rOT^^T ^nnexure P/7) directed fhe Sarpaach, kri to take back fhe petitioner Itihia a period of7 days. >r fhe petitioner submits that despite 16.3.2005 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Makd aa^l subsequenfly fhe order dated 26.5.2005 passed by 1jhe Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat, Paadaria, 4° actiou has been taken aad fhe petitioner has not been taken back ia seryice as Paachayat Karaai (Secretacy). Shn Vivek Shann^ leanied Paael lawyer appearing for fhe Respondents No. 1 1|o 4 does not dispiite fhe facts stated by fhe petitioner. In view of the fi^regoiag, fhe Respondent No.5 i.e. Sarpanch, Gram Pancpiayat, Makri, Janpad Panchayat, Paaidaria, Distdct- Kaw4nlha is directed to coiaply with fhe order dated 26.5.2005 In view of the fore finaUy. Annexiirc P/7) passed by fhe Chief Executive Officer, Jaap^d Panchayat, Pandaria mimediately, within a period of two ^eeks from the date of receipt of fhe copy offhis order, ^oing, the petition stands disposed of Certified copy, as ^er Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge