IN THE HIGH COURT' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) NO. Qa/qyC? /2010 Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Niranjan Prasad Sharma, aged PETITIONER C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1 'State of C.G., through the Secretaly School Education Department, DKS' Bhawan Raipur C.G. /' 2. District Education Officer Janjgir Champa, DistrictJanjgir Champa C.G. 3. Block Education Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE' NATURE OF \ MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. //, / /‘/, aném m g$aa1g$ WW W 61m matm W;% Wm SB : HON’BLE MR. JUsTICE PR1 mKER DIWAKER 25.11‘2010 Shri Dashrath Prajapati, co nsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P. . for the State. Ceunsel for the petitioner s bmits that his Case is pertaining to leave encashment of 240 days, hich has not been decided by the i; respcndents though he has retire from the post of Head master on 31.10.05. He submits that on se eral occasions, the petitioner has. approached the respondents but othing has been done by them. He further submits that the represe tation of the petitioner is pending before the resp. NO.3 but till d e no order has been passed ahd therefore at this stage, he may be ermitted to withdraw this petition and direction may be issued to e respondent No.8 to decide the pending representation. State counsel submits th let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the resp. No.3-a d in turn his representation would be decided the g by competent auth rity expeditiously. Accordingly, the petitione is permitted to Withdraw this petition with liberty to make a fres representation. in the eventuality i of making any such representatio by the petitioner to the resp‘ No. B within a period of one month fm the date of receipt of copy of this i ‘ g order, the same shall be decided the authority concerned Within a further period of three months, It is made clear that i that this C urt has not expressed any opinion on men'ts of the case and the auth rity concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation riotly in accordance with law l all considering the aspect of the ca%e. pp gfL—vE ; ‘ Pritinker Diwaker ' '33 Judge