t,iB| S.iM 'SSWK..^sS.aB3^&^SS3!S -^nr———-• iaH.E-::;j»i^»fci:s.^tsa2@z«Eaf iawBK:fl»3»^ •WsmasaK:awW3SfBSs^m~'s ^^sv^w^'w^9s^vsiBwsw^sswaiw^ (•d*H) BMgiri3:B*0*d <*anias<?'9[2a •••asgac t©Ziisranas . -aaaisn snaaa ® wasaaia aaaaa (E) •ita»)~'waBs^3af33,·SKS.WS,'siss ; ., !®>iaso^zas) ®p»iS&aad©;M»aQag®saia iss.siwvttsm i©x<»saaa '^sasay'W9S3»sevi as asawtmaA©®" : • • i^ x>i.aQB^!BCE ©tiaBita@ TEaaisswssa (z) t'<fW wss^ti'ia. *x&sva _ . 8aMsini«~"Sa@a@an0S3 HsaoaHa f^ssast'aavmxiHas saiss {T)'* ^jiA'i^. afflasTOia' *as?$tt "lyxxiafsswa •Hiir<E,3s.,xsiO*ia WESWS, yasK^sswssi& w f&aasssv asayw.-Tt-'Me'w aaw , Aaaaara ae'swasvsstfaa xaHs ® 8 jA&Sll»a WM0M 5i®HSW * d SSSBSSaBSSSS. /siwasiadywia ;-:S,.;flt,S.B.'a.:.A ^SF &wostaae ^CO/-^1-£.C^86WI®..-^Jr^a_fBW@®Ma^^«Sg«»' 5;^.c3 rsv ®a»»a»1 •Wffiieias. a&i. aasafiBi®f^'a@fas*ff*KaBiEAiiUB I:- r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR S.B. : HON!BLE MR. SATI8H K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.2375 OF 2005 it^ Petitioner Ashok Kumar Pandey versus Respondents StateofMadhya Pradesh and others Present : Mr. Alok Nigam, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. ORDER ith (Passed on 7m ofSeptember, 2006) ua l>n It is submitted that fhe facts and question of law involved in the present petition are same to that of in Kam Sahay Jha vs. State ofMadltya Pradesh cmd others (Original Application No. 15/1995). The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, by its judgment and order dated 16-2-1996, allowed the application of the petitioner therein. Leamed counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to approach the respondents/State for consideration and disposal of the petitioner's m ^^s^-^-^ssaSi^f^: case in terms ofthe order dated 16-2-1996 passed in the case of Ram Sah(y Jha (Supra) by Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State fairly agrees with the submissions made by learoed counsel for the petitioner. 3, Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation before the respondents — State Authorities for tfaeir decision on the representation in the light ofthe order dated 16-2- 1996 passed in the case o{ Ram Sahay Jha (Supra), in accordance with law, on its own merit within reasonable time. 4. With the above-stated liberty, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.