^ 'T v^ ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. <^ ^ ^ Of2010 PETITIONER: Ku. Mithilesh Awadhiya D/o Late Shri Sadashiv Awadhiya, aged about 53 years, occupation Service, working on ,.<.....---"%^^-'<!""^athe post of Accountant, Office ^1"'"^^^ •^^^"~" _......«.»-••* ^^^\\^\^""""""" of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Raipur (CG), R/o C/o Shri Chandrahas Awadhiya, Awadhiya Para, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG). RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, ST/ST Development Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector Tribal Department), Raipur (CG). 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TOE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r' 7' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6861 OF 2010 Ku. Mithilesh Awadhiya Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J. Present:- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Adv. General with Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Gowri ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 16th day of December, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Grievance of the petitioner is that she is a handicapped lady and is working on the post of Accounts Officer, but her attachment has been cancelled and now she has been directed to join at Higher Secondary School, Mainpur, from her present place of posting i.e. Raipur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had preferred a petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No.2963 of 2010 (Ku. Mithilesh Awadhiya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was disposed of vide order dated 25-6-2010 (Annexyre - P/12) with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected without considering the grievance of the petitioner that she is a handicapped lady. Shri Anthony points out that the grievances of other persons have been considered ignoring the case ofthe petitioner. At this juncture, Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, submits that tet the petitioner approach the respondent No.S/Collector by making a fresh representation and her representation would be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid assurance given by the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition^with liberty to approach the respondent No.S/Collector. Needless to say that in the eventuality of filing of representation by the petitioner before the Collector within a period of one week from today, the same would be decided considering all the facts of the case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. _-_—-——~ —' Certified copy today. pritmkerDiwaker Judge