HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR il'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ& HGN'BLE SHRi DHSRENDRA MISHRA, J. ?RIT APPEAL N0. 22 of 2008 PETiTSONER RESPQNDENTtSJ RESPONDENT(S) Raghunath Ram Sahu, aged about -37 years, S/o Fahgu Ram Sahu, R/o- Village- Kodasar, Gram Panchayat- Thakurkapa, Block- Takhatpur, Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Social Weifare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (G.G.) Collector Biiaspur, Dist. Bi!aspur(C.G.) Sub-Divisinal Officer (Revenue), Kota, Bilaspur, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Takhatpur, t. Bilaspur (C.G.) Gram Panchayat- Thakurkapa, Through its Sarpanoh, BlQek- Takhatpur, Distt. BHaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEALUNDERSEeTION 2 (1) OF THE CHS^ATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISiON 3. 5. Present: Shri Vihay Pandey, learned counselfor the j appellant. i . Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned C5y, A.Q. for the State/respondents No. 1,2 & 3. >nd (22mFebruaiy,2008) f The followina Judament of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Appel!ant-Raghunath Ram Sahu has fiied this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 11.2.2008, passed in W.P.(S) No.858/2008. 3. Appellant- Raghunath Ram Sahu filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "7.1 That, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to call for entlre records for its kind perusal. 7.2 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to jssue writ of mandamus directing the respondent Sarpanch to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and post him as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Thakurpara, with retrospective effect i.e. from 6.7.2005., 7.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble CQUrt may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioners." — 4. The appellant/ petitioner, thus in subsfance, wasseeking a direction to respondent No.5 to appoint the appellant/petitioner as Panchayat Karmi on the recommendatlon of Gram Sabha, Thakurkapa. 5. During the course of hearing, Shri Vinay Pandey, iearned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the writ rm. ^,t?; :i|i.i ??!:( 1 'siiSt 'lfcf Cz i^l^ IKl! •;::iS:-!i illl IIRI. i'lllffl III [11111 f^ililj !:;Ilri V9 -;tiKl-;-.<l aapsnfpiqD -/PS •|o pesodsip spueis tBsdde ipm 341 'JspJO sAoqe 341 MiiAA •8 -SplSB }3S SlgOOZZ' 11 P8leP •1SPJO P9u6ndlu! 8Lit 1 BI yiiM souepjoooe ui uoitStusssjdaj s.}ue||adde 34t Buipioep Jo^ 9 '8 fr'e'oN siuspuodssj oi Avsqil ||nj gpiAojd 01 MBIA e WM •L /• -UMBJPMIIM SB PSSSILUSIP spueis -8JOj9JS4t 'uoiwad IMM 941 -uoiiitsd »yM 94t MBJPLJUM 01 uoissiLUjad pstUBj6S! lueiiaddeeLii'uoitejspisuoo anp uo •9 •g 01 g-oN siuspuodssj oijsuoi.liisd/ »ue||9dde341 Aq pSHiLuqns uoi}eiu9ssjd3j84l Buinsjndp Aysqil MliMjiSSt! uoillisd nqqns (^MS^^