rii Petéiion under Articka 226IE27 (3f Canstitution of india Present : Petitioner PD. Kesharwani in persan. Shri Kishare Bhaduri, Additionai Advocate GeneraL for ihe State/ respcndent“ QRQER (2W “epterrber, ”04%) The foiiowing order of the Court way passed by vRajeev Gugmag CM}. Petiiioner RD. Kesharwani and Shri Kishore Bhaduri, ieamed Additional Advocaie Genera! are heard on admission. 2) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the foiiowing reiefs : i “‘Q1 That; the Hon’bie Court may kindly be pleased i to cell the entire records from the respondent pertaining to the petitioner’s case. 10,2 That; the Hon'bie Court may kindly be pieased to iesue en appropriate wrii of mandamusV order or \ W Q‘é HEGH GmiRT OF CHEAT?" SCaARH AT BILAS?UR V§$1QM &E?\M . £.QRAM mm 3L: $ER: EQJEEV GU?T!?\ Ca Hm$§LE SHRI $¥JN§L KUMAR SENHH, Writ Patiiion {PiLi N0”48?2 of 2:313 Fet§t4raner PD Kesharwani, aged about 63 yeas; $/o 8hri IP Kesharwani, RIO 7i. (343?, MPHB‘ iE Bhiiai, Dist't Durg L, {6(3) 490026 XIERSUS Rewom‘iam State of ChhattiSgarh, Through Chief Secretary, DKS ‘Bhawan, Raipur {6(3) direction, or any other writ, ordering and directing the respondent not to rerease the amount to the conoemed departmeniss ire PWDMIRSIPHE untii and unless their manual are duly approved by the State Legislature with norification took. place. 10,3 That, the Hon’bie Court may kindry be preased to direct the reepondenr to consider the proposal dated 13102009 and manuai preparation as per n'I‘ Anaexure P17. .\ 10:4 That; any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may eiso be aiicwed. An affidavit is filed herewith” 3) When and how a departmental manuai is te be revised is essentiaiiy for the authorities of the concerned department to decide and ceurte have no reie to ptey in such matter. 4) During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioner’s services were taken by the Government Department for proposed emendment/ modification of the departmental manual and no remuneration nae been paid to the petitiener. :3) in this view of the matter, we decline to entertain the writ petition tiled by the petitioner; which from the nature of the reliefe sought in the writ petition appears-to be a public interest litigation. r3) The writ petition, therefore, tails and is hereby diinEsed. “#a/ Sd/— i Sdl- i K Chief Justice K ‘g suNIL KU'MAR SNHA 1 t i i Judge subbu