\J^:' In tUe Hontrfe Hieh dourt ofC<hllatishgarliatBiIaspur(C.G.) ^ W.P. ISfo..........^<^.....2005 ••:--- : , Petitioner ......... ...... SIiarad Kumar Mahobiya aged 45 years SbnofShriTulaRamMaUobiya,KushaI Sahayak,B]iUpalRaoPawarG<wt.Po]ytechnic CoUege Ruddri Distt. Dhamtari. Versus:' • ' :: . ; : . ReSpOndent ............ 1 Th&State Govermnent of Chhattishgarh Throughthe Seeretary, Mihistry ofGeneral AdmiiustratiOn Department, D.K.S, BUavan, Raipur (C.G.) . >0^^ 2. Director ofTechriical Education C G.DirectQrate ^^*~//^5 ^. Of TeclmicalEducatioriGirisPolyteehnicparisar ^e^ , Bairan-baZar^Raipur • : .^?^'^^'':'::';.-'-':;.y-:.^ j»'/ VlJ'lO-' 3.PrincipalPblytechnicGollegeDhamtari(C.G.) >• • •; :: :•' .•- " : "; : : . - :' ; . :.'- - ^' : .: • ' .' ' ; ;... . . . ' ^ • ^^' :..;: .. ;-' ^ €^ • ;':' ;:1:.^ :. Writ ^Petition undeK.iAitfficI<es32!®S2%o£tl C'Qnstitiltion^ofIndia FortIieissuaaCeI6f3wBilgniBtIiS!nStuBeiflfiman^a^ prohiNtioa and^E3o:ffiiel*:suiitWe?wriftorwrits,^ direction or^u'ections iii::iii!:il—'n'i-r-n-^-—^ ?.iE^36t5i 5ERBU S3HHtSna ^2Kra!fi^ ^^t^K"Sffi^.^^^S^^aS^S^^^. :l'i;;;'i'i.sa%i! ;•••/) XI-HC-22 ^an^i.^f-— [^•<i?t>3i'I^I..| sb+li<=h '^iffcT 1 V;' -s /f> '",^p ^^ ' p .•''? .4 •T5g •^NR^, ^<-ljl<i, Wffl'My .<^;- ,3ii^i ^aiSiT^vs 12-12-2005 .. StiycR.S.Shrivastava. eounsei Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. A^v. for State, on advance copy. , Heard; Counsel for the petitioher s^bmits that tlte petitioner was an employee of M.P. State Road Transport Cprporati^ri and aftei: abcrlifion ofUie Gotporation he was absorbed in. Potytechnie COBege Counsel for the State submit^ to the petitioner to make a detailed order wifhin ftvo weeks &om toda aceordance with law as early as poss| ' •<4)I<4l<rl4)'1 TlP;:R;it* ^ ^St <n*l^l< ^73t^ItT OT^t' forthe petitioner. 4de-order : dated.;7/10/200a (Aanexure-P/2). Ttereafter, .vide'AtBiexi^^I(^d 29/11/2005^te absorptioit order; was withdrawn. Thepetitionet-has notsultaitted any representation. ' - that for Ae present t&e petitioner may ffle tfae detailed representation before the co^npetent authorily of tfae respondents wtuch will beconsidere'dandtlecidedmaccordatkcewithlaw. ^ ^ /"•'.-• •.- Having cqnsidered and wifho]ut expressing any opmion-on flie marits offfie case, m the opinion qfthis Court, en^ ofjustice wffl be servedtfadff represehtafion raising his grievances before fhe eompetent authority bf fhe respondejnts along <viA a eopy of ttie petitiori and this r an3 on.such representation bejng filed, the eompetent aufhority of the respondetits shall decide the same oa/its on'n ments m ble preferably wifhm.ttvo nionths frbm the date ofrecapt pf.&e representati<a. It i^ made clear that if any. ^eyance remams petitionermayavafltfaeTemedyavaila^le'unaerthelaw. ' . . . . Withthe aforesaidobsen.'ationt, this petitioa stands' disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P.No,49}0/2005 also stmd disposed of Gerttfied eopy as pernries.' Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge frl!tf