c r.\d o -^ Q) S.B, (Service Matter) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (GHHATTISGARHI WRTT PETmON (S) NO.S02A- /2010. PETITIONER: SmtReema Sharma, wife of Satish Sharraa, aged about H3jears, workingas Lecturer Govt. College of Edyeatioh,TarbaharChowk,Near Sty/'ama Hotel, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Respondents ^.••tis^' <MM/ ^y »••'s?< ^'^y ^ versus /l. State ofCfafaatdsgarh,"Fhrough SecretarySBhoolEducation DepartinentJMulistiy Et.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Ohliattisgarh. ^^. Direetor.^tiBlK^n^ Pensipn Bada,^RaSg^$(3Bia1rtisgarh, >^ B. TheDistriGtfEducatioiiOfficer, Bilaspur, DistrictRa^arti,^^!al5(>*'l^ Chhattisgarii. t< 3V Joirit Directoi, Accounts, Treasury and Peiisiori, Bilaspur, Gfafaattisgarh. WRntPIETmONHNDERARTieLE2260FTHE CONSTI1'IJTB3N©FI]ffl]»A ''!p-\.\ . '. 1. PARTieUEARS<>ETH^BEmTIC)NB^: As mentioned in the Cause title. 2. PARTIGULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the Cause titk. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE GAUSE/ORDER^AGy WHIGH THE PBnTHQN m MADE/ SU^ MATTER IN BRIEF. 31l8RT W ft-fi* W[ SD^I siiiii'o 'TST •^1'41<'('LI, ©•ill'M'Ko,fiiMiyy ^,{; C?J r^- 3.0 2-'2/2^1_0 sn^r •'raq? ('^3?^?) 2T TOiiwBfeisn^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, counse'! Shri Satish. Gupta, Govt. Adv advance copy. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitii an Assistant Teacher and she obtai; while working as Assistant Teacher the case of the petitioner is identicc 2006 (!i) M.P.J.R. 9S(CG). It is also various judgments, an order was pas^ Ambast vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 06-02-2009. Learned counsel yarious decistons, the petitioner is als; However, from the pleadings petitioner has not approaohed the rei beneffi. Under these clrcumstances, it open to the petitioner to approach t! claiming similar benefit, who shall takc with faw. . With She aforesaid observation, qamcpN iimif < ft^t <H<t<;K •^sjRmsfi^i 'or the petitjoner. 'cate for the State/respondents on ner submits that the petitloner was ed B.'Ed. Degree at her own cost Govt. sen'lce. It is submitted that to the case of Yashwant Kiimar n, Durg snd aaoffter reported in [ubmitted that later on, relying upon ;d by this Court in the case of Uma a|'»afOShers(W.P.(s)No,367 of 2009) fUrther submlts that in view of the entjtled for same relief. |nd documents, it is found that the ?pondent authority ciaiming similar ('ouid be therefore proper to leave it [itie concerned respondent authonty declsion thereupon, in accordance the petition is ilnaljy disposed of. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge »!i<i0<i S>*T ga°iRnr,.IWI-<FTO —FS/H7—2/2010 —1,