!N THE HSGH COURT OF JUD'CATURE AT BELASPUR CHHATTiSGARH W.P. NQ. (, "R> /2006 PETITBONER ./ Smt. Renubata Pathak, Aged about^'years, W/o. R.G. Pathak, R/o. Sector-3, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur(CG) VER';!)'; RESPONDENTS ^ 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Education Deptt; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 21 Dfstrict Educatlon Officer; Raipur Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Director of Public Instruction Pension Bada, Rajpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) •»-'" WR!T PET!T!OM UNDER ARTSCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^iTT Pi-li'ti 31RSI ^t^^tf^f \ - ^"i: ^ ^ nc' 1-- T ^ I/ ^' ^sg ^!|<||d'i|. yflly'is. ic<rtWl<' wf ^lofc 311^1 ^SII^R ^Ti^f S-2-200! Shri Vaibhav Goverdh^n, counsei for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Kale, Govt, ^dv., for the State, on advance copy. Appiicationforurgenti|iearingjsaliowed. . Heard. Learned counset for retired. He further submits completed more than 24 yea State counsel does no fact that the petitioner oomri and has not been given thd <=t)i^I<'l.'4'11 'HTC^ff ^ ^^ TN??R ^T 3I^(PT an^r |he petitioner submits that the petittoner Is that ttie petitioner has been retired withoirt being given the second tirhe bound promotion, though the petitioner s of regular service. He also submits that the petitioner is entitled forthe s^rne. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 4-1-2006 r^ndered inthe case of V.K. Shnvastava vs. State ofChhaWsaarh & Otfters (W.P. No.6504/2005). dispute the above fact. Havina c&nsidered th^ facts and cireumstances and in view of the and further in view of decis directed thatthe concerned the Deiitioner In accordance \ Accordingly, the petitii^n is altowed. Certified copy as per rfules. Copy to State counseilfQiwampttaf^e. leted more.than 24 years of reguiar service benefit of Tlme Bound Promotion Scheme lon bfthis Court in W.P.No.6504/2005, it is ^uthority to consider and decide the case ^ith lawfor grant oftime bound promotion. T. Sdl' ..- Fa^udd'n L'^dQe [^ u'.r