IN tHE aTATS AE^EINZSTfiATIVE TRIBUNAL PSINCIPAL B£NCi •AT .JABALmjR- o<»A«Kro.r^;ZB2'>05' 1998 BBT%EEN anf» saroj Kujur (XaXxo) lo&fe .of Mi©iusXalxo^aged about 3Q! years^ ^orfcing-as ^ssistant Statistical Officer in the Office of District Mal'b Muoation Raigarh (MP)» APgLIC^?3; Aisr© The State'of Madhya P^adesh^ Shrough the Secretary ©epartzn^it.of Education.^ Vallabh 8-iawan, SHOP^I,,, 2^ C^mmissione^^ Mult B3ixcsation •Satpida Siawan^fflOEAL^ 3e C©lleator(Adult E^ucatAon^BF^ach) RMGAga, Tahsil and MstriGt RAIGA8H* 4* Distriet Aault gdueat.ion Offieer, RAIGA5H, Tahsil and District RAIGAKH (MP)• 8E©PQND®?TS DESAILS OP APPLICAIION ( -HC-22 3^r^T f<rtJ5h 3Tl|p?T ^^iw^n 'S^i ^lt^lM^I, ^Tl1<141<o, iQl«y11<11< ^.Mf.^m'^ 5b*<i<?n '^^ar' ^ ^W^l ^bNlcb 200 ^I^T ^CTTW ^l^a ^rf^ 8B: Hosi?ble Bhri Maaiadra Mo3iaa Shrivastava, J« 11.01.2010 Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, counst Shri Ajay Dwivedi, State/ respondents. The iiistant petition has ^ order dated 13th Januan7, 199^ caiicelled. In the retuni filed by tli| stated tlie represeutation Commissioner Bilaspur Divisioij Education and Chief Secretaiy isj Iii view of fhis, leanied coj fhe petition itsetf inay be dispo^ flie petitioner's grievan.ee stated Learaed cbuiisel fbr ttie Sti tlie case bf fhe petitioner would l| Taking iato consideration couiisel for the pai-des and fhe opiai6n, interest of justice wc respoudents to consider the decision on tlie saoie in accords period not exceedmg 3 months this order. subtnitted cbNfd^l'l *iM<nT Tt'fex^ <F3i<^l< '^3rt^FT3:n^r A for the petitioner. )y. Govt Advocate for fhe een filed aggrieved ou account of by which saactioned leave was respondents/State, it has been by the petitioner to tiie ^, BUaspur, Commissioner, Adult pendiag aad is yet to be decided. »J.inselfor tlie petitioner prays tliat |ed ofwith a directiou to consider fhe representation. ^te/ re6pondents also submits fhat |e decided as stated iii fhe rctuin. |he subniissions m.ade by leamed ^ircuinstances of the case, iii iny ^uld be seived m directiag the ^itioner's representation aiid take ^iice witli law withm. a reasonable ^*om the date of receipt of copy of pe^itK •s^...s^W..s^WW XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r f<Tlicb 3?T^T $»i^ict»'yf^a ,'" Sinha ^ "S^i ^WM^, ^nl^Ko, ^<ni<iy 3Tli^T 'q^? HW^l g^^...........—..—••*.•.—.••—.•.^^ 200 'I^^T"""""""""""""" 31T^[ '^dT^R ^f?H *"" orlder, Accordiiigly, tlie iastaiit direction to petitioner to approac| with copy of fhis order withio. a ]| petitioner, if so advised nxay contiriuatiQn of her earlier repij period along witli copy of this to clecide tlie case of the petitic^ froni ttie date ofreceipt ofcopy o^ It is made clear that opiaiou on fhe nierits of fhe c^ petitioner is still aggrieved, it wii^ to such reiaedy as snay be availalj No orders as to cosfc <=ti^f<n<flt ^w^S^ fe^ <f^i^$i< '^3:lf^TH3n^T petition is disposed of wifh a h. fhe concemed respondent along »eriodof 1 nionth from. today. The submit fresh representation in esentations withia fhe aforesaid der. Tlie respondents are directed aer wifhia a period of 3 raonths tiiis order. s Court has not expressed aoy ^se. Needless to emphasi^-if tlie be opeu for her to take recourse ^le to her under the law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude