,<> QK > IN THEJION'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fSINo. 1&S?> Of 2010 PETITIONER \^ ^. ^ ^r '^ ^^^^; >v \> r&*f-'' •I 'y^" y tb;. Bohit Ram Sahu, S/o. Deenkaran Sahu,, aged about 70 years, retired professor, CMD College, Bilaspur, R/o. Deena Niketan, Vidyanagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : if Sta.ie of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Manfa-alaya Raipur (C.G.) 2)' The Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Govt. Science College Premises, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Director, Department of the Higher Education State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4) The Principal, C.M.D. College, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5) Chairman, Managing Committee, C.M.D. College, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER^RTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3(1^1 ^T K.'u* sf^s stiHish tifia •^si -^w^, i9T)'1'u<icB. facii+iy ^.^W..;.l£.^° HWWI tt>*<iq» W^ 200 fq^y" sn^i'reiiwnfkd SB: Hon'ble SIulIVIanindraJBohan Shrivastava, J. 16.4.2010 Shri Manish Upadhyay, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, State/respondents. Heard. Contention of leamed petitioner -retired from the No.4/College. Petitioner claim! leave of 79 days which has not cjaunsel for the petitioner. Dy. Govt. Advocate Learned counsel for the passed an order dated 24.7| 3800/209} relating to colleague| same institution. Reliance has been placedj the case ofState ofRajasthan] Lachhinangarh & Others, (200)5) tbe Learned counsel for representation has already be| which, in turn, has been decision has been taken on the feame. ^I^ICT^ ^ii^vit ^ f^^ <p3i't$i< '^'siPtTOan^i for the cjounsel for the petitioner is that the Ipost of Professor from respondent that he is entitled for encashment of t>een granted to him. betitioner submits that this Court has [2004 in identical petition {W.P. (S) of the petitioner, who retired from the on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School, . 10 SCC 346. petitioner further submits that ;n given to respondent No.4/College, forwa^ded to respondent No.2 but so far, no Sfl^I^iT {'^•u'b an^i ^^1^-MI^I Praveen -S^ ^WM^, d'dl'M'lti. fa<vll<^1< 3TT^?T '^RK NINCTI ai^i's "OT, 200 i^^a' Considering the subinisi petitioner and the order pasa Dr. K. Tripahti Vs. State No.3800/09), 1 deem it expec decision on the petitioner's preferably within a period of 3 of this order. iions made by learned counsel for the ;d by this Court earlier in the case of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P. (S) to direct the respondents to take r^presentation, in accordance with law, |months from the date of receipt of copy elf 'xpei^ient It is made clear that this the merits of the case. cbP4l<n^ll ^lli-Rll* ^ T-Q^ •(Fif^K ^? sipgir an^l lourt has not expressed any opinion on With the aforesaid directijin, the petition is finally disposed of. —&sl(M'ww [Tft^^R^