IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W^ NtfL5x&/2003 ^- PETITIONER Dr. Nandini Tiwari, wife of Shri Saigay.Tiwari Aged about 35 ResidentofOmN^rJarhabhata BILASPUR(C.G) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS 1. StateofChhattis^rii, IIirou^i, Secrdtary H%hw Educatbn, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralya, Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.) Director, Higher Education, Science Collcge Can^us Raq>ur (C.G) The State Administrative Tribui^I, Throug^i Secretaiy Raipur- District Rayur(C.G.) / /"" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE »(AN»tt7 0¥Tfll CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS ORDER REGARDING THB PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVK TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR. 2. 3. T XI-HC-22 ^I^I^T 4^TW31lt^T ^-4ich ^ifia ^~^[ ';^Tpn^, "^ ^<rji^^< 3ff^T M?l<*» ^TO^IT^HT^ '^ 2003> •I^ST' 3T[1^T ^CT^R: ^Tit?r 19.09.2003- cQun!s@l s4eks Shri Praka^h Tiwari, Shri Ranbir Singh, ^ovt. Heard both The counsel. By this writ petition und^i of India, the petitioner No.203/2001 filed before the The petitioner's case is Professor at ^oyernment Artsl She was sefected through em^ the State ^overnment and th< was selected through the Commission for the same increments for the period frc No,2 passed <xn order withdrav<| for the period from 1990 to beforc the State AdminisTratjve of respondent No.2, which was TTie learned counsel for| State Administrative Tribunal the petitioner is still pending to withdraw O.A.No.203/20(p for the petitioner, ^dvocate for 1+ie State/respondent No.l. po^t chl'6l?<r}4i"j 1RTR$ff ^ 'fe^t <R?l^j< '^'STf^R 3T[^T j^r Articles 226 <& 227 of ,the Constitution to withdraw Original Application State Administratiye Tribunal, l^dpur* ^hat the petitioner is working as Assistant [<& Commerce CoJlege, Biiaspupsince 1990. srgency appointmpnt os per the poiicy of preafter, in the year 1994, tiie petitioner ^election made by 1+ie Public Service Thc petitioner was oranted annual }m 1990 onwards* Later on, respondent ing the increment? 9Jyen to the petitioner 1^94. The petitioner moved an application Tribunai challenging the said decision ^egistered as O.A.No.203/2001. the petitioner submjtted that since the ^as been abolj^hed and the application of i3&fore the Tribunal, the petltioner wants )L 'He further submitted that the f XI-HC-22 CT^r-'^r 'fe^'3^^ '^T[W^?ft?[ Soma ^\ ^^ ^\^lcrl^, ^iil^ l <o, fa<vll|^^i WH^T^W^ 3ff^T 'q^ .^^^m.f. "^^sr' ^ 200^ 3T[^T ^CT^:-Hf^T 2--1 peTiTioner has no orher remedy jexcepT TO fiieThtswrtT peTtTion iri order th® to withdraw the apptication pend^ig Having heard the learnec| <$ovt. Adyocate has no objectioi{i In the eircumstances, No.203/2001. is allowed to be withdrawn. Accordin9ly/ th^ petition Consequently, I.A.No.8714^ before the Triburial, counsel for the petitioner, the iearned to the request of 1+ie petitioner. appli<^tion of the petitioner, O.A* Nthdroiwn and the same is dismissed as ^tands disposed of. ,4/2003 dlso stands disposedof. <^l^?cn4l'1 'RTFRTf ^ l^^t if^i^K ^ ^rf^TR ^Ti^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge &- [Tft^'^S^