S!NGLE BE — IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASAPUR WRIT PETITON N0. ^-^°/2005 PETITIONER ^<~ ^..^ ^..••^-- ^^•/ y^^'-"' ^J^\>" ^y VERSUS RESPONDENTS 2) Shiv Nath Ram S/0- late Rajnadhar Ram, Caste- Vird, Aged about 65 R/0- Kedarpur Rign Road Abmikapur District _ Suiguja (C.G.) 1) The Auditor General Accounts, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Surguja Distt- Surguja WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MADAMUS CERTIORARI ETC. @ HI*1rtta?TT^ ^•c^l'-qi«lrt<4,tPTll1<-l'll<o, Rlrtl^y<< ^.p.4^trD_ _ W^200^ 3n^^T^TRTli<b ^TT3TT^$Tfl?*li<P 3TT^5T Vf9RS (4c|i^<s|<^) ?^:IT^;Hf^T3TT^^T 19.10.200S W.P.No.4850/200^ Srat. Hainida Siddid Shri Paakaj Shrivasj Heard. Leamed counsel farfh.er submits that aftei] beiag paid to him^7*tEe| W.P.No.586/2005 befoi^ entertainiag flie writ p^ Advocate on advaiice copj was directed fh.at if so a^ representation raisiag all| order and copy of wri.t pe| the competent aufhority coinpetent aufhority shall| m.erits as early as possib^ from the date oflGlmg fhe Leained counsel foil passmg of fhis order a petitioner vide Anuexui| cpi<<Fo<i1<i WR^F^'(^€^K^t^ix ^3ri^T3n^?r [ue/counsel for the petitioner, tava, Panel La^vyer for the State. for tfie petitiouer submits fhat the petitioner is a retired p^rson. He retired on 31.5.2001. She decided fhe represeutatic bis-retirenient, his retiral dues were not petitioner filed a writ petition vide this Court aadi tilis Court after [tition in. presence pf the Goveniment ^ passed aa order dated 9.3.2005 an^d it |lvise.d, tiie petitioner may flle a detaUed his grievances along with copy of fhis |:ition within. 15 days from that day before ^iid tf siich a representation is filed, fhe lconsider aiid decide the same on its own |e preferably with.m a period of 4 months ^epresentation. tlie petitioner fui'fher subniits tliat after ^etailed representation was filed by the P-6 through CoUector, Ambikapur, District Surguja on 22.3. $005. She also submits fhat even after a lapse of more fhao. 4 410nths^ the State authorities have not of tlie petitioner aad tlie petitioner is facmg much hardship on|account ofit. She further submits that SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^rac^f$^<TT^ 'd-ccj »<<I'yirt'q, IPTT|I<-I<I<»,RlrtW^ ^ ........^?...^.^L. Wl 200 3TI^$TcOTR^i<h ?T8?T3n^$T?CTtc|? r ^0<?< sf^t ira<p (4ci^6i«£;) ^iT^T? ^Rd 3ff^^T ^^ tliis action on the part conteiapt of tih.e order and fhem. Shri Pankaj Shrivas advan.ee copy ou behalf Surguja submits that if coniplied ui time aiid the oftlie conceraed authoriU the law and rcpeated writ regard. At tliis^ stage, leai permission to withdraw appropriate steps under 1 passed by this Court on 9 Wifh. fhe aforesaid ti Certified copy as pe^ <pi<ilo<il<i +iiHoY1¥fel<£lxRi^i^ ^3ri^T3n^^T of the respondents raay amount to [appropriate action raay be takeu agamst |tava, Panel Lawyer who is appearing on ^f the State/respondent No.2, CoUector, |ao. order passed by this Court is not petitiouer is aggrieved by flie said action [, he raay avail appropriate reniedy under Ipetitioii is not the proper rcm.edy in. tliis haed counsel for the petittoner seeks fhis petition with libert^7 to talce he law for non conipliaiice of fhe order 3.2005 mW.P. No. 586/2005. berty, this petition staiids disposed of. rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000