IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (W.P. (S) No. ...'g/.S.^......./2011) / Shambhu Dayal Yadav S/o PETITIONER t..< ,0 yi'^..'' ..'fl' ,/rf ,^y^ -^y -••^c^/l/a' ^".-•""^' ^-•••""' ^ } RESPONDENDS VERSUS \/ 2. ^ 3. v^"' 4.y Late. Vrindawan Yadav, aged about 49 year, R/o Ashirwad Bhawan Maansarowar [Near Godown of Indian Gas) Chhoteatarmuda Raigarh, District-Raigarh [C.G.J State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Co-operative Bank Marayadit D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, [C.G.) The Managing Director C.G. Co-opeifcative Bank Marayadit Panddri, Raipur (C.G.) The Registrar Co-operative society Chhattisgarh Pension Bada Vivakanad Complex VivakaNand Nagar Raipur CC.G.J The Nodel Officer I.C.D.P. cell [charge of Integrated Co-operative development project Raigarh), C/o Registrar SEte^Egr ^~5m;ENB[,8y Co-operative society Chhattisgarh Pension Bada Vivakanad Complex VivakaNand Nagar Ralpur [C.G.J (C.G.) / 5. The Liquidator [Collector Raigarh} Distt. Central Co- operative Bank Marayadit Raigarh, DIstt.- Raigarh[C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlS@ARH_M^!!iASPUE SB : HON'BL.E MR. JITSTICE PSrS'm'SES. DIWAKBR W.P.iSi.NO. 7154/2011 Shambhu Daval Yadav Respondents versus State of Chhattis.Barh & Others Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey. counsei for the petitioner. Shri I^.Naha Roy, P.L. for the State. (01.12.2011; Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that he was appointed on contract basis as Sub engineer under the controt of respondent No.4 and was entitled to received Rs. 11,000 per month from 29.8.05 to 31.3.09 but instead thereor he has beea paid only Rs. 7000 per month. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition however, direction may be issued to respondents 3 8s 4 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to respondents 3 85 4 and in turn the same wouid be decided in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition. Needless to state that in the eventuality of fiiing any fresh representation by the petitioner before the respondents 3 & 4 within a period of two weeks from today, the same.would be decided by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation. In view of above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in acx'ordance with law. «fs Sd/- Pritinker Diwakei Judge