K‘ci/ L 01? (m7f” 3%NQLE wigw IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ w.P.{S)No. UULEB /2o1o Gulshan Kumax Thakur, S/o Late Shri Ratiram Thakur, aged about 4O years, R/o Amaguda, Near National Highway Office, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS - RESPONDENTS ' : l; [gtate of Chhattisgarh Through :— The Secretary, Public Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, M” Raipur(C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway 85 Bridge Construction Region Raipur (C. G .) . PETITIONER Works Department, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. § W . W€@N&‘ WW m 2 mm (Wu) mmf‘awtm" WWW amfmm wan BiwAKER E 1 43$~2Q1 9: for tine petitioner. . yiMrggStmitha Ghai, PL for the g ;regu!ar>pay‘ scab but the same r Dmits that initiatly the petitioner was granted S B HON’BLE JUSTICE MR FRET! i :M‘r. Sdmkant Vermai counsei Cppnsel cf the petitioner su opportunity. He submits that his; oas 2008 paosed by this Court in WP; (S Counsei for the state subrr cannot say as‘ to whether the case o 14‘“ March: 12008 passed by this Cou in WP‘ (S) No. 61 85/2007 tAnnexure P-3), In view of the above facts. i State/respondents. 3 as been withdrawn without giving him any e is covered with the order dated 14‘“ March. ) Nor 6185r2oe7 (Annexure P—s). its that without verification of the fact, she the petitioner is covered with the order dated has been submitted by the petitioner that at this stage he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition and to hie proper representation before the respondent Not 2 in terms of the order dated 14m March, 2008 passed by this Court and in tirn the respondent No. 2 may be directed to decide the same expeditiousty in acc to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid The petitioner is permitted iibertyt In the eventuaiity of fiiing an; such representation by the petitioner before the respondent Nor 2 raising aii his grievance, it is expected from the respondent No. 2 to decide the same considering ail the factual and legat aspect of the case as expeditious‘iy as possibie. it is made ciear that this COL rt has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority cont ii‘ representation of the petitioner strict y in accordance with iaw. i i * Sd1_ Pritinker DI ordanoe with iawi erned would be at iibert to ecide the t r r .(i f i W i r > Judg‘é, i L.“