wfW/Q‘p <B/F" /N‘qgw (‘ 3N um: maxim ywxmm STATE Argqxgxgczggkgxymmgigmg% Jg£amm éfiginal application 1x Q .I} < v Dam‘s EMadmiatarTemrekar 8: oihii'vrS a . a JAPPIMAEE wVa rs us w f IMP 8' cthcrQ g w a NGNJAEPLICAMIES DETAII$ OF JQE’PLXCA‘I‘IGI‘J; a “e '3? i ama. .l 3n.‘ Paxnml ¢5 of tn”: appavcnxzcl a . 1/ {a} §§pl§¢wnt 1m .01 g i) name ‘ achuld a. Tcm z.- u ‘g’ ”1) Father'$ mgr-ate $ Lata E’itambar lei. mamrakaz: iii) date 0:6 birth a 27 .661955 m iv) qualificggtmn ”B {Balang} hm. v) de3ignatign 3 A$siEtan‘b-Teacheru vi) date w cmgoimmen-éz'g 7.»:L2w1984 vii) place: Qf pQsting 3 Tilak Miécllés $cmol Burg (MwP) .,> ‘ v lum—mt $032 as ‘ p ; ?ar$adi Rem Sah‘a, Shri Jarlak ii Sahllv iii} cam-Le CW b1 12h '01a10u-1965 iv) qualificaman 3’ B ‘SC“ (B»‘T‘olm} v) ‘ <3$$i laaticn ¥ ‘ s Assi$tant~="éache \vi), aat m. ,gapiwm'zmentg 25 Q9 19387 an mnt§a.”2. ' O j ° K3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILA$PUR Writ Petition {SI No. 730 of 2005 Petitioners Ms Madhulata Tamrakar &.' others Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhamsgarh) Versus 8a others (SB: Hon’ble Shri Sau’sh K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (oral) (Passed on this 13th day of November, 2009) Heard. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved in this petition is governed by the Circular dated 20.1.1987. This Court by order dated 9th October, 2006, disposed of the Writ Peu'tion No. 499/2005 (Rajeshwar Rao Kridat Vs. State of Chhatu‘sgarh an others), in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pmdesh v h in Indxaveer Singh Tamar vs. State of M.P. and othersl, which was disposed of in the following terms : “2. ...... In View of this submission advanced by Counsel for panics, this petition is disposed of by giving following direcu'ons. The respondent No. 1 shall conskier petitioner’s representations referred to above and dispose of the’ same at an early date, preferably Within a period of 3 months hum the date of commiinication of this order in accordance with law, keepin‘g in mind the cimuiars issued by the State Govt. a's also the directions giveh hy the Tribunal in similar matters; 2. Learned counsel appealing for the respondents] State does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ‘ 2004 (2) MEET. 3 (Noe) V In Vew of the above, this petition stands disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authority, rasing hi grievance in the lig of the order dated 9th October, 2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the onier passed by the High Court of Madhya Pmdesh in Indraveer Singh oma: (supra). o order asto costs. /’ _ ., t ._ ' wi Z Vi i \L‘ Sdl— . Ssh K. Agmhom . Judge i i s ht T N