s ^ ft- 7 S5~Q |C UTiCI-i i'"ni-IOT .TKhTr^TIJBF AT ^, '{""t =.W ^ i \^\^' 'v,f ¥\i i>S\^'S»f^\»'S~%i^J't\^. y 1 ». ^ Y/^~ >^>y/ ^y/ nv^r^// ,f -•' /•§?^' 4^ .'§''•" ^" <'? . •<*'' N&ENT, ^^ ^ -co^ 3 ^ ^.&^ ^•& ^-Smt. Mogra Bai, wife iy£. Shri Vijay Kumar &evangan, aged about 28 years, resident or Villsge Khami, Tehsil Pandarlya, DJstrict Kabirdham (C.6.). Vs. y. State of Chhattisqarh, L,,-- through the Secretary, Department of'Women & Child VVelfare, A^antraSaya, &.K.S. ^'! m, Raipur. ' 2. 'The Coilector, Kabirdham. ^-•The Additional Coliector, >.: /* Kabirdh ^-The Proje Inteqrated ESevelopment Kabirdharn. Officer, Chi!d 5.,.Janaocd / 'andari' Panchayat, iya, through the Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat, Pandariya. »-r ^ 9 "^" &rti^ ^v/i'^rti ^-"i^Vif^/^w •^^. i^ilii* i^uiiipyui'i ^'uuuurvu ur about 21 years, resident of Khami, Tehsii ^andariya, District Kabirdham (C.&.) h^- ("DNATTTIITTHN DF TMhT.4 '^Ss^ 1^^ S A> ', V i A.^^ i ^ ^' i u |'^i fc^«.r% •ab.:^—- ^>r HIGH COURT OFCHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petltion (S) No. 1878 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VE&SUS Smt. Mogra Bai State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Malay Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, PL for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4 None for respondent No.5 Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.6 WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^ONStttUtKWOF INDWT ORDER (29.09.2010) Chalienge in the present writ pet'rtion is to the order dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.4 whereby afRrming the order dated 26.12.2036 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent No.3 termlnating the services of the petitioner from the post of Aanganbadl worker. 2. It has been fairly adm'rtted by all the parties that there exlsts an alternative remedy for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissloner, Raipur under Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayats (Appeal & Revision) Rules 1995. Furthermore, as the parties are required to lead evidence in respect of their rlval claim, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to flle an appeat before the Commissioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner within one month from the date of recelpt of copy of this order. In the eventuallty of filing any such appeal along with an application forstay, the Commissioner is directed to decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as posSible after issuing notices to all the parties. : —^''.- 4. It is directed that the interim order dated 30.03.2007 would continue until the application for stay 1s decided by the Commlssioner. •f Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge (%^- —Ass