3%,“:‘5 M bk %m7/~ EE THE HON’BLE HEGE’FE QQUR’I‘ QF SHHATTISGARH AT 4 EELASEWJR w. Ego L’ m3. a135? a 9F 2911 g’igi‘ITETEONER 3/ Aru Kumar Gupta S / 0 Shrf Chandramani, ag€d aboutg45 years, working as Field ASSiStant, Public Works Department, Sub Division—Sakti, DiStt. Janjgir—Champa, R/o Laltafxki Chauk, Bahidar Para, Raigarh — Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)’ VERSUS i State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Public Work Department; D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) Engineer, Fubiic Work. Degartment, Raigarh Bivi3ion, Raigarh {so}. Public Work Department, Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (go) Executive Sub DiviSional Officer? wkii‘ PETITEON ENEER itRTICLE 226 OF THE eewsTIIUTION or mom ‘ n HKBH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH i BiiASPUR WRIT PETlTiQN {L} NO. 228§ OF 2M1 PETITIQNER Arum Kumar Gugta Versus State 3f Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS {Writ Peiition under Amcle 22€ 0f the Constiiutian cf 5mm; $ing§e Bench : Hen’hge Shri Satish K. Agniho’iri, J. Wesent 1— Shri MKSinha Advocate for the petitiener. $hri Y.S‘Thakur7 Dy. Advocate Genemi farthe Staée. GREER {CERAL} {Pa$sei:i on thi$ 02w day sf. May, 231 1} 1. 8y xhis peiition; mg petmcner seeks permissiom t0 make a .y represemation to the rEszpondent No.2 to ccmply with iha order passed by the Labour Court f0? grant :3f back wagea 2. Fm making a repm$enta§om no pgrmissmn sf ihe High Ceur‘; is, necessary it aisc does mi intimate that infringement sf any stam‘zory Dr' fundamen‘iai rights 33 invaived. Even orherwiee. there 3e a previsien under the raw 'io eeek comeliance of the crder paeeee‘ by i‘he Lemur Ceurt. 3. m View Gf foregeing; there is n6 merit in i‘nie ceee end the petitiorr ie iiabie it: be arici ie hereby dismissed ii? Sd/- Satish EC , K.Agnihotri i i ‘ Judge