IN THE HIGH COUST OF.M&ai'Xa "fSAiiiESH A1< s ^ABA&PI»R ^A-S Wrlt. KasBx Petit.J.ener N®. ®S 199S. Petit.i.oner : R.K.ShaEma, age<3 about 43 yaars, Son ®£ Shri Burga Pirasad Shanna, G/® Sm-fc.Panna Shaaaa, Teaehe.ir-Prlmary Seha®,t Tj.lda P.O.Nevra,Bi8fet. B A I ? ® K .(M;P«) Respoadentsi Ve r sa s leThe Chl-ef BKegatI.ve Ofifioer, iTanpad Panehayafe, Bhafcapara, Di.sfc-t. R A I P X R .(M.P.) . 1 •~..,2.Tlae Calleator, R A I P U R <(M.P.) SoThe Sub ivisipnal Ofifieer, iTanpad Sabha, RA I P (J B .(M«P«) , 4«Tfae Bepufey ®irea1t9r, Panehayat & s®eiaiWelfare, B A I P;X & .(M.P.) PETITIOBKK TOTDBR ARTICfcES-226/227 OF THE eONSTITUTION OF INBIA. '<- ES^.8l«'ssgl!sa&,^ ^; "s?-|..:=^tiisi^^^ss HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Pctition No. 735 of 1995 Petitioner R.K. Sharma Versus Respondeats The Chief Executwe Officer & ofhere SiHgle Bench : Hoa'ble Mr, Justice Satish K. AgnUtotri. ShriAshMh Shrivastava, couiisel for the petitiouer. Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the respoadents No. 2 to 4/State. ORAL ORDER (6A March, 2006) Leanied couasel for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioncr was appoiated as Lower Division Clerk by the respondent No. 3/Sub Divisional Officcr vide orier dated 11.8.1972 (Annexure P-1). Service of ftie petitioacr was terminated on 1.7.1989 (Annexure P-7) on the grouiid that he contiiiued to reinaia absent. Being aggrieved, the petitiouer has filed his representation/appeal on 14.9.1992 (Aimexure P-10) and 11.12.1992 (Annexure P-12). The same hdve not been considered by fhe authority conceraed, who is an appeUate authority under the provisions of Rule 32 of the M.P. Jan Pad Panchayat (EUgibility, Recruitment and Conditions ofService) Rutes, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules 1976"). • Leamed counsel for fhe resppndent No. 1 submits that the letters dated 14.9.1992 (Aanexure P-10) and 11.12.1992 (Aanexure P-12) are not» fhe appeal, as conteinplated under Rule 32 of Rules 1976. Leamed coiinsel further states that fhe petrtioner has not filed any ,statut6iy appeal as provided under Rule 32 ofRules 1976. •^ ^1"':": 4. Be fhat as it may, lettera dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure P-10) and 11.12.1992 (Annexure P-12) be treated as appeal without uisistmg upon any proforma required in appeal and the respondent No. 1 is accordingty, directed to consider aad decide letters dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure P-10) and 11.12.1992 (Annexure P-12) as an appeal against the order of termination ffled by the petitioner within a period of six weeks 6-osa. the date of receipt/pioduction of a copy of fhis order. 5. In view ofthe foregoing, thc writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu