C: (5 N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASR Ice.) W.I’.S No. 5’\E[\3 [2010 §mv 1E $E$§$§§ l/ ‘ Smt. Sashiprabha Singh h W/o Shr ,Shailendr'a smgh, Aged about 26 Years, R/ o Quarter No. 97, Surbhi Colony, Near S.P. Office, Dantewada (C.G.) PETITIONER: VERSUS 5 2 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throug the Secretar RESPONDENS T: Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D... Bhawan, Mantralaa Raipur (C.G.) Collector Beejapur (C.G.) Deputy Collector Beejapur (C..G.) Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bhopalpatnam District Beejapur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUACE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS- OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND I FOR OTHER BLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONSH % i 1 PU i h y KS y N SUITA . wyegnuzmz o mm" W33 200 WWW WW Wm %s1‘1%ma11é¥r SB: Hon’ble 8hr! Manindra M 17.6.2010 ohan Shxivasta J. Ms. Snhita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the Statc/rcspondents No. 1 to 3, on advance copy. Heard. Leanled counsel for the cau$c notice, earlier the pctiu’v and dun'ng pendency of the S£ passed on 6th April, 2O 10. In \ to withdraw earlier Writ Petition (S) No.80[2010 with liberty to file nesh petition, on 7th May, 201 by this Court in W.P. (S) No.i 013.), wherein direction was is: Omcer to Ieconsider the matt giving en'ect to order impugne was subject to the decision 01 med earlier [(W.P.(S)80/ 2010]. beamed counsel for th similarly situated employees mCOnsidered by respondent reinstated in the service. lt has been averred in the petition that when the petitioner approached respondent No.4] C,E.O. for reconsideration K petitioner submits that against show- aner med Writ Petition (S) No. 80/2010 Lid petition, an oxder of termination was iew of that the petiu‘oner was permitted D, an order (Annexure P—12) was passed 384/ 10 (Anita Tati Vs. State of CG. & med to respondent No.4] Chief Executive Er and pass appropriate ordexs Without i therein, Iecotding that the said order 'the Court in the case of the petitioner) *lvw : petitioner submits that the cases of namely Anita Tati and others were No.4/C.E.O. and they have been 3mm (new) Mr. Varun Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. H:M A” §Kf Wm wt zoo emu-m (W) mmw WWW ‘2’ WW§1§QW wmm aasimanéw of his case, the concerned o$cc=r orally refused to accept the order of this Court stating that the order passed in the case of Anita ’Rm' (supra) did not apply to his ca Therefore, now the petiu'oner is before this Court. On the other hand, su mission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there exists an alternative statutory remedy to the petitioner to me appeal agains order of termination dated 6th April, 2O 10. I have heard learned co sel for the parties and peruse the records. Taking into consideration thatin view of order dated 7‘31 May, r 20 10 passed by this Court in W P. (S) No.2384/ 10 (Anita Tati Vs. State of CG. and others), cases of o er employees were reconsidered by respondent No.4/ Chief Executi OEcer and they were reinstated in rt, instead of directing the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal, it WO d be appropriate to direct respondent No.4] Chief Executive OEcer to reconsider the case of the petitioner also and take appropriate decis' n in the matter. It would be open for the petitioner to submit repress tation raising all such grounds as are available including claim of pari of treatment. With the aforesaid observ dons, the petition is nnally disposed 0d. sw- \ ’ , .,7)_ n at Manindra Mohan Shrivastayg ~\ Judge service, in the opinion of this ,. Praveen am dam:w, (mime —L+S/i 47—2/2010 —1 ,oo,ooo. e. Sentence nlremiy undergone bv the :xcvuxvd: wts i u