(J- ? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSl N0. 2-C>£7 Z- /2Q11 fS.B.1 PETITIONER ^ _^ ^f^ ^ CX^'*' Ta.'i- ^\^y'...?'Y ^y^--:y •\B'"» ••'' ... \®. ...••" •^^•"' Chaturbhuj Prasad Mishra S/o Shri Moti Lal Mishra, aged about 60 years, working as Assistant Grade-II, Govt. Higher Secondary School, ^\\^'^'..- .' Ragaja (Sakti), Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). R/o- Deori, P.0. - Pandhi, Tahsil- Masturi, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS ^r^^ ^^>- RESPONDENTS : 1 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.' The District Education Officer Janjgir, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned inthe cause title above. Ll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR WRTT PETITION (S) No. 2052 of2011 PETITIONER : Chaturbhui Prasad Mishi-a. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofClihattisgarh & Anofher. n7RIT PETII10N UNDER AR'IICLE 226 OF 'IHE CONSTnunON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satiste K. Agmliotri. J. Present: Shri R.R.Som, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thaiflir, Deputy Advocate Geaerai forthe State/respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 18U1 day ofApril, 2011) 1. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that thougfa he is entitled for tfie benefit ofpay protection as per the circular dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure P/2), but fhe same has not been considered by the respondent authorities. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioher submits that the petitioner has made representatioiis to the respondent autliorities on 23.05.2009 (Annexure P/4) aiid 01.12.2010 (Annexure P/5) but the same have not been decided till date. He submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and deeide his pending representations- expeditiously. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/Tespondents submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representatioa to the respondent No. 2 which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law after scnrtinizmgthe facts and circumstances ofthe ease. 4. In view of the above, tiie petition is disposed of, resei-ving liberty to the petitioner to make a fi-esh representation to the respondent No. 2 withm a period ofthree weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order, and in tum, it is expected that fhe respondent authorities siiall consider and decide the same within a farther period ofthree weeks fromthe date ofreceipt oftlie representation. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and fhe authority concemed would be at libert}' to decide the representation strictly in accordance wit law, eonsideruig all the aspects ofthe case. •a/' SatishK.Ag 2. K.