Cay*S:n' FEE8 (-^i:&iKPTCO &¥>,^-,'riCAHONN0 SSSO/'Q-^-'vyX'- ls»O.G^05AS SFESi^iiER IN SCri£Oyt?: £&3 OF THF OOUffi F£E9ACT' -'e?". Si?-trt?i isenos" BEFORE THE IIIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR (CG) REVIEW PETITION N0. l"\£ / 2011 (ARISFNG OUT otW-A. ^fo. 375 /2011, W.P. (S) No. 3154 /2005 & O.A. N0. 85 / 2000) ^^ APPLICANTS // Appellants (respondents) p; :1. StateGovt.ofM.P., (now State ofChhattisgarh). Through Secretary, School Education Department, ^^H^^^-^Si^ Mantrala^l^K.S:Bhawan- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. —•^qo -1 ( 2. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur (CG.) 3. The Deputy Director, Education, Kawardha, Tahsil and District Kawardha. 4. The Block Education Officer, Chliuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG.). VERSUS Shrimati Nirmala Shrivastava, age 49 years, Wife ot'Shri Pannalal Shrivastava, Lower Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, UDAN, BIock and Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG.) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW / RECALL 0£_TIi^ORDERDATED_9T" APRIL. 2010 PASSED IN BY THE LEAKNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. fS) N0. 3154/2005 - BEARING PARTiES ""SMT. NIRMALA SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF NON APPLICANT / RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) AND OTHERS'^ aa'ssBsai, t\ Review Petition No. 115/2011 State Govt. of M.P. [now State ofC.G.) &0rs. Shrimati Nirmala Shrivastava Petition for Review |SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J.] (Passed on 7.12.20111 1. Petitiori for review of order dated 9th April,2010 passed in W^P... (S) No.3154/2005 has been filed on fhe ground fhat the petitioner had not completed 20 years of.qyaltfying service for fhe purpose of pensioii, as the period froni 16.10.1988 to 27.8.1993 was Ulegatty regularized and approved as extraordinary leave by fhe Dy. Du'ector without anyjurisdiction and he whawas not competent under Rule 31 ofthe M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. 2. By the order under review, fhis Court has not declared that the writ petitioner was entitled to voluntarfly retirement. Whatlia.s. been held is fhat tf at aU the period of extraordinary leave was disallowed by ,the State Govemnient for the purpos.es_,Qf peasion, petitioner ought to have been continued in service till ^f;;^1--^--^ /',v :i!8.».'t\ ^ ^':l:i-^^^ !&. s? SK 'iP'" .-y ''^^. ^ ..^''-^ ^%SEC^;:"U"" -2- rL she attatned fhe age of superannuation had she not been retired w.e.f. 28.8.1993. tffhe writ petitioner was not entitted to voluntaiy returement on fhe ground that she had not coinpleted qualiiying period of service, she was entitled to continue tn service. Relief has been granted by taking tnto consideration fhe aforesaid aspect of fhe matter. 3. Therefore, the review ggtition is misconceived p ^ricl . i§ accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen