@w2r H THE HIGH COURT OE Gii¥ITTISGZ§RH AT BEMSFUR. Ev.P.N9.m i3 73 1200 1. i , > .r’ PEI‘IEIONER. MT. MANOPM% Siam, AGE 28 YEARS, WIFE OF @TIRm-«x saw, RE-a‘IDENT OF DAYALPUR, TEHSIL NAwAGARH, mism. DURG,CHH‘%TTISGARH. VERSUS! _RESPONDENES. L! STATE DE cm-x’aTTxSGARH, J 'Bi—ZROUGH CDLLE@&§, EIRG ( C. G.) . 2. JANAPAD PANwAyAT NAwAGARH~ THROUGH cmim’im, TEH. NAWAGARH, mam EURG‘ (c. G.) §" ~ ‘ JANRPAD PANCHAYAT IMGARH, 021%}: 3 g%m Exaw'rlva oFFICER' .. “’ a -‘ DIST’I‘. DJRG (C.G.) . 4.'’ GRAM EQANCHAYAT, VMEDHAK I, THRGUGH $ARPANCH, TEHSIL NAWAGARH DISTT- mRG (c.G.). a“ WR§ PEEITION UNmR Z§MECLE 226 AND 227 GEEHE CON$T1TUTION OF INDIA‘im sappRGPRIAT IQN Dmgcr ION. g } .. _ k. HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR’ SB: Hon’ble Mr. Jusu'ce Satish K. Aylhotti, J w %>‘, Shri Sharad Kashyap, Advocate for the pctitioncr. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ajay-Dwivedi, ‘ " -~ [Lawyer for the respondent No. 1. one for the respondents No. 2, 3 an 4. d € K ORDER The pen'tioner was appointed as Anganbadi Worker vide order dated 26.10.1991. As mm the month of May, 2000 no salmy was paid to the petiu'oner, she served a notice (Annexure P/ 1) on the mspondents. ' The Pmject OEcer, Integrated Child Development Schemes, Nawagarh (Durg) vide mply dated 26.2.2001, informed the petitioner that her a services was terminated by the respondent No.3 vide 16.5.2000 on the ground of dereliction of dunes, pursuant to the Iesolution passed in the meting of the Samin' of the Janpad Panchayat. Thereafter the petitioner tiled Revision No. C/ 144/2000-2001 on 27.2. 1001 before the Additional Collector, Bemetera. Vide order dated 7.6.2001 the Additional Collector dismissed the revision of the petitioner on the ground that the revision was preferted beyond the period of limitation i.e. 60 days. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the Additional Collector, ought to have decided the revision on melits, 'but without expressing any opinion on merits the revisional authority has dismissed the revision on the gmund ofdelay. Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2001 (Passed on this 21" day of February, 2007) Petitioner Smt. Manomma Sahu Versus Resppndents State of Chham'sggrh 8n others 4. Learned oounsel appearing for the pcijtioner, on msmct'ons,‘ submits' that thc interest of justice would be sub—sewed if the matter is remitted to the Additional Collector, Bemetera for decision on merits. Shn‘ V. V. S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer, appealing for the respondents/State submits that .the present case may be considered by the Additional Collector, anesh on meme but tlns should not be a pmdent wxth mgard to the order on lmntatlon penod as pmscn’bed for dling a revmlon under the Panchayat Ra} Admmyam In view of the foxegomg, havmg regard to the peculiar $013 and - 5di- Jl i ’J Satish K.Agnihotri , « ’* ‘ Judge m: m t; l .Mn_w._n-t r \ l