C1 Iaté//_‘ ‘z ' w l‘“; 5 E F é { E ‘ AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) ‘w.P.1S) No. c§z9€1 ‘ Of‘zoo9. Versus RESPONDENTs 1(State of c G through The Secretaly Adlm Jat1 Evam Harljan Kalyan Vlbhag, vawv I f D.K.S. (Ch'hattisgarh) ' v Bhavan, RaipUr WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 1 ONSTITUTION OF INDI a: w 2) /Commlss1oner Adlm Jati‘ ‘ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ? C A z I ' PETITIONER z: ‘ Smt. 'Anukampa John, wife of ; } . late Harendra Kumar‘ John, aged ' about 54 years, Suspended Physical Instructori Shaskiya Kanya Ucchattar§ Madhyamik Vidyalaya, ‘ Manendragarh, ~ District Kogriya (C.‘G.) ’ Q~ ff Q‘“ 9/ (Chhattlsgarh) :3) Reglonal Deputy D1rector / Adlm Jat1 Evam Harljan Kalyan - Vibhag, Bilaspur /‘( Chhattisgarh) 7 :4) Deputy- _Director, Adim Jati ‘ Kalyan Vibhag, s Ambikapur D1str1ct Surguj‘a , /(Chhatt1sgarh) '5) Collector (Adlvasi ’ Vikas), Korea Balkunthpur D1str1ct / Korea (C G) 6) Assmtant 1 Corrim1Ss1oner ‘ Adlvas1 Vlkas Korea Dlstrlct V 6°“ Korea (Chhatt1sgarh) HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH BILUR Wrlt Petltlon (S) No 2961 of &009 Peuuoner Smt. Anukampa John 3 Versus ‘ Respo’ndentSJ Stats of C. G. 8r, othe‘rs J (Wnt Petmon under Amcle 226 of the Conshtuuon of Ind1a) g (SB Hon’ble Shn Saush K Agmhom J) Shr'ix H B Agarwal Senior Advocate with Shri K. S. Pawar, Advocate for the pehttoner Shif Yashwant Smgh Thakur Deputy Advocate General w1th Shn A. V. Shndhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondentg. I ‘ ’ i ! E o R D E R (oral) § '( Passed on this 9‘11 day of DecemPer, 2009 i Heaxd. v 1. The petitioner has hled this petition :to direct the respondent No.5 to dec'nie the leave case of the petitioner within time bound pen'od. 2. Lealned counsel appealing for the respondents] State submits that the enquiry is pending consideration. If a representation is made by the petitioner during the enquiry or thereafter, the same shan be considered and decided by the concerned authority, in accordance With law. 3. In view of the foregoing, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. However, if the grievance of the petitioner survives even after decision on the representation of leave encashment, liberty may be granted to the petin'oner to approach this Court. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above-stated liberty, if so advised. No order asto costs. r%x S 5 batlsh K Agmhotn Thakur ' ‘ j ’ Judge ASP )