-^-' ^k ^ u^G^t0^/'"7' s<-.ffi36LHtf)H2^ £WESI&^<%'^3^3Ias'%^T]TOL%32@I^- •- -^§aifgi_M<£i)1- ••••"- • - -. - "•- •• -' - -- - -•• a5\ Origiaal ^iplieatAen No^l^.-^>«/1995 Shiv Ktimsr S^m <«>«• <» «. ^plic^ite ^Ves^-as^ Sfate o£M»P«& otiaers —-.--. NoQ-^pliemt®. ^^ €Q£^t^jc^iss %/s <3:9«@^ .toe x<aEB':t£;is'tratiSe->T£i^fu2^s-.^St^lS8^ 1» Partiaalars of tfee ^plieept < o^a@ < Shiv Kuraar S ^m • fatiaex* s n^&e < Shri Bhvniava R^a S ^u • of birtfe s 05-06-1963 i) ii) iii) iv) dBsigciation t Assistggat-Teaeher. v) <iaeli.fieat.i©n » K«A»Ee0R©mie®^ B«Ed<>» Ti) Offiee ad<aress < Prtoary SGteolL^ ©faBrsena^ Ti^- N^d@^a% TaJasil - Kavagaffhr ©istt.®u£g(M«P) Tii) dat®©f^ppoJtoitaieaat < 21«l2.1S88« ^srticulars ©fifee r®s]poHd®ntst i) State ©fMa<3hya-Pradesh, tfaxe>u@te < S eeretary, S^aol E<aaeati©a©epartaae&t @OVt«.©f.M»P» ^all siafe-.Bh es?ei>a, Bh©pal (M»P) • o©ntd««<2» ^-t. 2 8- ii) <3@ia te^]DJ.ree-te>r, ©cbool:".SdnaatA0B..®(a£t, Trfa. & Bistt^iii^ (M»P) ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BHA8PUR Writ Petition IS} No. 1088 of2005 Petitioner Shiv Kiunar Saliu Versus Respondents State of Madliya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & another (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotd J.) Shri V» G. Taaiaskar, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shn Yashwant Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for fhe respondents. ORDBR (Oralt (Passed on this 12th day ofNovember, 2009) Heaid. 1. Learaed counsel appearfag for fhe petitioner submits fhat the question of law iavolved ia fhis petition is goveraed by the Circular dated 20.1.1987. This Court by order dated 9th October, 2006, disposed of the Writ Petition No. 499/2005 (Rajeshwar Rao Kridat Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers), ia terms of the order passed by fhe H^gh Court of Madhya Pradesh m IndraveCT Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P. and others1, which was disposed ofia the followmg terms : "2. .....Jn view of fhis subinission advanced by Counsel for parties, this petition is disposed of by giviag followmg directions. The respondent No.l shall consider petitioner's representations referred to above aad dispose of the same at an early date, prcferably withia a period of 3 monfhs firom fhe date of coinmunication of fhis order m accordance wiffa law, keepiag ia iniad fhe circulars issued by fhe State Govt. as also fhe directions given by fhe Tribiinal in similar matters." 1 2004 (2) M.P.HT. 3 (NOC) 2. 3. Thalmr Learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents/State does oot dispute fhe above submission niade by learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner. In view ofthe above, this petition stajaids d^posed ofwifh Uberty to thie petitioner to xnake a representation to fhe conceraed aufhority, raisiag his grievance ia fhe light of fhe order dated 9th October, 2006 (supra), passed by fhis Court aad fhe order passed by fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Indraveer Sin^h Tomar (supra). No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge