r!^' •,.? .•/ -^ ^ t -^, .l!-.\' -- Itf TH5 MAmZA PIi&DESH AmiMBTBA.TIVE' TMBDSAL _AT_J:ABAI^Sg,;Bg^gr: Oo-A BSTWaSN. Bishs-.l BS.BI Nisad S/o Darahs- Ram.Msad aged about ^O yeaps occupaUon Assi^t^.nt: - Tas-chQr , Go-^r-naient; rrifflS.iy Scbool Vi cha. rpur' re s1dant o f Vicharpur fs-hsi 1 £&v?a ra.h.a distrlct Ra:jnandgaon • A^BHGft.S?' A „I _D. Ttis Depu.ty Dirsctor Sducation Ka^ardlia. . BESPQIDaS? ..^ j&.-.-.. IETAILS OF A IIG&TIQH ? '73^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHM SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITION fS.) N0.450 OF 2005 Petitioner Bishal Ram Nisad versus Respondent The Deputy Director, Education, Kawardha Present : Mr. Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondenVState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31st ofJuly, 2006) hWil'MNNlt The petitioner filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.20-A/81 against the order dated 9-8-1980 passed by the respondent. The order dated 9-8-1980, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, was the order of relieving of the petitioner on transfer from his place of posting to a new place ofposting. However, the same was misunderstood by the petitioner to that of order of removal. Accordingly, the civil suit was filed by the petitioner. The Civil Judge Class II, Dongargarh, by order dated 11-1-1988 (Annexure A-l), directed the respondent to reappoint the petitioner and the relief for grant of other benefits was rejected. In compliance with the said ~2-~ order dated 11-1-1988, the respondent - authority reinstated the petitioner on service by order dated 24-2-1988 (Annexure A-2). The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant ofseniority as well as grant ofback wages froni 9-8-1980 to 24-2-1988. The order ofthe Civil Judge is very clear and on the basis of the said order, the petitioner was appointed afresh on 24-2-1988. The benefits including back wages prayed for in the civil suit was rejected and no appeal or revision was preferred against the said order. The order became final and the respondent - authority has complied with the order in its letter and spirit. 2. In view of the above-stated facts, the present petition is fhvolous and does not create any right in favour ofthe petitioner for grant of reliefas sought for in this petition. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge Gopal