S<N6LE 8ENGU IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^ /2011 o PETITIONER "Dhyan Singh Thakur, Son of late Dhan Sai Thakur, aged about 61 years, Head Master, Middle School, Gidhani, Block Chhura, Tah. Gariaband, District Raipur, R/o. C/o. Ganesh Singh Thakur, Sector No.3, Sadak No.4, Professor Colony, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Throuhgh ^ ,« ^^./\ '^y-^ ^>*' ..•^ ^ 2. Secretary, Department, Raipur (C.G.) ^Direcfor, Department, Tribal D.K.S. Welfare Bhawan, 4. Tribal Welfare Pt. Ravi Shankar University Campus, Raipur (C.G.), Assistant Coniniissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Cominissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.), Block Education Officer, Chhura, District Raipur (C.G.), Principal, Partapur Hr. Secondary School, Block Koilibeda, District Kanker (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR SB ; HON»BLEMR. JUSTICE PRmNKSR DIWAKER W.P.rsi.NQ. 6569/2011 PETITIONBR Dhyan Singh Thakur versus RESPONDBNTS StateofC.G. & Others J Shri Amritanshu Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDBR (09.11.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though he is entitled for the revised 6^- Pay Commission, but the same has not been granted to him. According to the counsel for the petitioner the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission has not been granted to him as according to the respondents, his service book is not available. Fiirther contention of the petitioner is that number of representations have been made by the petitioner but till date the same has not been decided. State counsel submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No,3 and the same would be decided in accordance with law. In view of above^ the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the resp. No.3 within three weeks from today and the same would be decided by the respondent N0,3 within a further period of four months from the date of its receipt^ in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the appeai strictly in accordance wifch law. -— -——- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge