^ W ^'^.^ft.-'. :^?lft'>S «• !^:1.\$^T; :"" .col5TF8ES@®;^PTEO IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) REVIEW PETJTIQN No.?J 12010 Sii APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, /' Through: The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (CG) JQ- ^ 2. Thesecretary, Government of ', Chhattisgarh Department of Finance, ^p1'" ,.' DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur \>"^\^" • (CG) ,..-••;^"v^" ^•",.'»t" Y..-^' ^y. The Director General of Police, Police ^ ...-V ^ Headquarters, Raipur(CG) •^ ^ NON AEPUCANTS/ PETITIONERS !».».•u^ ^ % yj ky ''"'^,-!-®'" 1 ^SS5@^?': ' ' ^ ^4. D.I.G. (Administration) Police Headquarters, Raipur (CG) 5. The Director Treasury, Audit and Accounts Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) ^ VERSUS 1. Diksha Mashih, S/o K.K. Mashih, Aged about 47 years, Occupation Subedar (M) Posted at S.P. Office, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) Smt. Rani Shukla W/o Shri Sushil Shukla, Aged about 36 yrs, Occupation ASI (M) .3r Smt. Sarita Sharma, W/o Late Shri Rajendra Sharma, Aged about 49 years, Occupation ASI (M) 4. Smt. Chandrika Sahu, W/o Shri Preetam Sahu, Aged about 34 years, Occupation ASI (M) Smt. P. Revamma W/o Late Shri Vishwanathan Nayar, Aged about 51 years, Occupation ASI (M) 6. Deepankan Saxena, S/o Shri Chandrapratap Saxena, Aged about 2 years, Occupation ASI (M). The respondents No. 2 to _6 are working under the District Prosecution Officer Raipur C.G. 7. Sunita Khobragade, S/o Shri Gyaniram Khobragade, Aged about 34 years, Occupation 81 (M), working underthe S.P. Office Distt. Kawardha (Kabirdham). APPLICATION FOR REVIEW / RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 07th MAY, 2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(S1 NO-C691/2006, DIKSHA MASHIH & OTHERS VS.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS REVIBA' PETITiON No. 29 of 2010 APPLICANTS r^r~M~TO nESr-UNUti'i i o NON-APPLiCANTS PETiTIONERS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VERSUS Abdul Nawab an & Others. RESPONDENT; REVIEW PETiTION No.'30of2010 State of Chhattisgarh & Oth.ers. NON-APPLICANTS PETITIONERS VERSUS M.L APPLiCANTS REVIEWPET1TION No.31of2010 State of Chhattisgarh & Others. DENT: NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS Diksha Mashih & PETiTiONERS ;EVIEWPETiTION No.32of2010 APPLiCANTS .SPONDENTS .oruiMUCi'i NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS Pawan Kumar Kurre & PETITiONERS REVIEW PETITION No.33 of 201 O APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLiCANTS PETITiONERS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VERSUS Santosh Kumar Shrivastava & Others. REVIBA/ PETiTION No. 56 of 2010 APPUCANTS RC.OrUiMUCIt 1 O ,ir>M_; 1-APPLICA.NTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. t/ERSUS Kailash PafeiS Others. PETITiONERS REViEWPETITiON No.57of2010 APPLiCANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS PETITiONERS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VER; Smt. Bai Bharaav & Others. y PETIT . Ql. APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS PETITIONERS REVi State of Chhattisaarh VERSUS Ramji Dhruw & Ofhers. PETITIQN No.61 of 2010 APPLiCANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh i VERSUS Balbir Singh Thakur & REV!EW PETITION No. 62 of 2010 APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLiCANTS PETIT!ONERS State ot' Chhattisgarh & Others. Prakash Kaodi S Others. APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS PETiTIONERS REVIEW PETiTION No. 63 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh & Others. /ERSUS Prakash Minj Ss Others. AND 'PETITION No.64of2010 State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VERSUS Sanjeev Kumar Shrivas & Others. PETITIONERS APPLiCATiON FOR REVIEW/RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 07TH MAY, 2009 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Present: Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy applicants. Shri Prakash Tiwari and the non-applicants. Advocate Genera! for the State/ Shri Anand Pandey, Advocates for (Passed on 23ro day of February, 2011) i ^-: .// 1. The appiicants seek review of the order dated 07.05.2009 passed in VV.P.(S) No. 4563/2006 (Abdul Nawab Khan & Others v. State Chhattssgarh & Others) and other connected matters, on the ground that the respondents (writ petitioners therein) are approaching the Government for fixation of their pay scale. 2. On perusa! of the judgment and order dated 07.05.2009, which is sought to be reviewed, there is no direction for fixation of pay scaie, as the said issue was neither ralsed nor argued at the time of hearing of the writ petition, though a pieading was made in the writ petition. Thus, without pressing the issue as the same was }iven up during the argument, no declsion on the question of fixation of pay was taken and no direction has been issued. The iudament and order dated 07.05.2009 is clear and does not adm'it of any ambiguity and further, not capable of any other exDlanation or meanina. 4. In view of the above, at! the above review petitions are dlsposed of. Sd/- . SatishK.Agnihotn Judge as'nok