^s. .^?^^ ^"•g^ Y^d^ ^ •s^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Sikif; W.P.CS) No. 2011 V PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 7 Sheikh Jumman, S/o. Late Sheikh Chliote, aged about 70 years, R/o. House No. 32/102, Opposite Bunkar Society, Amapara, Raipur, District Raipiir (C.G.) VERSUS lF State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2] Joint Director, Accounts & Pension, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Divisional Joint Director, Division Raipur, Accounts 8t Pension, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur 4] -^' Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, In the campus of Office of Secondary Board of Education, Pension / Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5] District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^> WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11 PAnTTPTTT AT?<; nT7 TTTT; T>UrrTrTTni<iTTTO I'SAL x@ya^ 8 -^' W.P.ISS.NO. 6705/2011 Sheikh Juinraaa RESPONDENTs versus State of Chhattisgarh & Otfaers Shri Maaoj Paraajape, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.NaIia Roy, P.L. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION (16.1X.2011J Grievance of fhe petitioner in fhe present petition is fhat fh.ough fhe benefit of second tuue bound proniotion is graated to hiin vide order dated 30.05.09 but fhe ainount of gratuity has not been determined on fhe basis of fhe new pay scale graated to tbe petitioner. Counsel for tlie petitioaer submits that purpose of fi'iing this petitionwould be served ifdirection. is issued to the respondent N0.1 to decide the pending representations (Aruaexures P/7, 8 & 9) of fhe petitioner. State counsel subniits that Iie has no objection if the pendia^ representations of the petiti.on.er are decided subject to his entitlenient for the arrears of gratuity. The present petttion is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.l to decide fhe pending representations of fhe petitioner if ak-eady not decided, as expeditiously as possible, in accordaace with law. It is niade clear fhat fhis coiirt has not expressed any opinioa on the laerits of the case and fhe autiiority conceraed wouU be at Uberly to decide the representation strictly in accordauce witb law. Pritiiiker Diwaker - .Judge