N^ilSii ^^ 'i&{M -,.J'^ ~<"^- \ sr-^ S SWGLEBEtiCH IN THE HON'LBEL HIGJ±COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W P.(SyNo. ^^^ /2010 PETITION_ER \^^ ^^.^ ^s..- ^' ^ ^^ ^f s<<:%<^ ^M^ •••^y' Somhath Sahu, S/o.- Late Shri Futukram Sahu, Aged about 41 years, Head Master, Government Primary School, Damaudahra, Block - Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus • 1. 2::- State of Chhattisgarh, Through'- The Secretary, . Education Department, D.K.S, Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon , Coltectorate, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education Officer, (Drawing & Dtsbursing - Officer) Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) District. ^ Treasury Officer Rajnandgaori Distnct Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDEKARTJCLE 226 QFTHE CONSTITUTjON OFINDIA. ^ :is- -,.^^ .'^s^ i';;11 :-i!il ;i|l ill tn-'ll '^lli-.'i vi^r! II lltiSjjl :i;!;i5'M '^. ^ IC—78 '3'^T "^l^Kri^, «iTl1-M4l<o, f«l<'ll<H^< 1..^. ^. .?^ ...u..e:^)....(A>^ ^IUdl ^^i^ ••"-—•"—~w-^——"""—"^^2< 3?n^r XRW (yif^<^) ^l^l ^T R;'l1ok WT 3ff^?T ^IW iT^nw ^rft^ ^T?^?T BB : HOIff'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRJ|T£NI€ERmWAKBR 01.09.2010 Shri Anup. Majiinidar, cor Shri Vaobhav Goverdliaa, coun^el for the petitioiier. .HL. for fhe State. By tliis petition, the petiti< 3^.spondents to pay two advaoc.e passiag of D,Ed exaoiixiatiou, entermg iiito service. Couusel for tJie petitioner s iii tlie present case is ua longer beeu considered and decided by Sexena Vsa. State of M.P. & Oth weU as by th.is Court ia CorporaMon, Durg & arwiher, 200 Kumar Verma Vs, The Siaie ofCM 4130 of 2005. Shri Majunsdar further sut is squarely covered by the <3 petitioner raay be permitted to liberty to inake a representation t< aforesaid decisions, subject to ver To fliis, State counsel su petitioner niakes a representatioj <sM<<t<n<il<i ^iH<nt "^ fs^l <FSI^I< '^3tRm3?i^T mer seeks a direction to the m.cs^meiits froni l.iie date of OB. his own exj^enses after stibmits tliat the issue mvolved res integra as the same has tlie Supreme Court in Asha if?rs, 2009flS) MPJR (SC) 59 as Ya^hwant Kumar Vs. Municipal (S) MPJR-CG 96 aad Gopesh ^aUisgarh & Another, WP(S) No. |m.its .tliat the i&staiit petitioii |ecisions (supra), Thus, tlie ^itlidraw fhis petition with a decide his ca.se ia the .Ilght of Lt&cation of the fa.cts. bmits fhat in the event, the 1, tlie saine will be considered ^ '^"v^. n'"^ ~\ 1^^_^^^^ 1 '^•-;%_ •^ss^ XI-HC—78 ^ITRCtT (lt^l^» 's^ ^ww^, ^Ti1-(-)4i<o, fsi<ni'M(j,< ,.I.J.:.?..:.^....^.,.4ff^ ^n^r 1q?w (13^3^T) a^T^Tf^tNF WT^TI^T sr»kilcr» ^ ^wi<tR tit^a 3H^l -'L ' aiid decided m accordaiice witll decisions of the Supresae Court i|i as fhis Court in Y<^shiuant Ki^mnr Gopesh Kumar Vejm,a (supra), tion^r Inview oftliis, the petition^r petition with the afbresaid Mberty| such representation, it is expecjted decided ixi accordarice with law from the date offiliagofthe repre^entation <^i^f<r1^ '^FT<?Tf ^f fe^ <P»i^i< ^3tRm3?1^T law ao.d m tlie light of fhe Asha Saxena (supra) as we'U. Bharaclwaj (supra) mid, is permitted to withdra;w 'tliis In the eventuality of filixig aiiy fb.at the sa.nie would be .fliin a penod of three snonths Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge