ETZ57 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^ b ^ /2011 PETITIONER: Smt. Kusum Bai, Aged about -4cyears, Wd/o - Late Munna Singh, Occupation - Sweeper, Veterinary Hospital - Korba, District - Korba (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Veterinary, D.K.S. . Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) /^/y .^^ c^^^ ^..AXC-"' ^'..••; c^/^5y ./^ / 2. Director Veterinary Services, Raipur (CG) 3. Joint Director, Veterinary Services, District - Bilaspur (CG) 4. Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, District - Korba (CG) ^'^f 7 <iyjy/..^. ^~ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ s a'w}y \^Mf. •'iass^s'xPHC—7& ~3^ •*iWM^, axil-'-l'Ko, M^I-My ..kJ.£..QU...[^..-:.MS^/. wnsii^wiw -\" wmre'nft?? •CT^I [SB : Hon'ble Shri Maalndija Mohan Shrivastava, J 23.6.2011 llwari WiS?raR •mwi '9 fs^t tN^rc ^sifTO 311^1 7ari, counsel for ftie petitioner. Advocate General of the State, on Shri Santosh Kumar Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dil advance copv. Heard on admission. The case of the petitiotier is that her husband was workin^ as Part Time Sweeper m fh^ ofilce of Deputy Du'ector, Veterinar^' Services, Barpali. Though, t.|ie petitioner's husband was enjomln^ a regiilar pay-scale, fhe sai^ pay-scale was withdrawn vide order dated 9.2.2000. Being aggijieved by the aforesaid order, which applied to number of per Leamed counsel for thl also identically situated and| in terms of order passed in t| ate of Madhya Pradesh [^ sons, includmg one Vishnu Prasad Dahire, a writ petition w^s filed by Vishnu Prasad Dahtre registered as W.P. (S) No.3244/05 before this Court and the sanie was allowed vide order dat^d 28*- July, 2006 and he was held entitled for grant ofregular ^ay-scale. ^ State submits that the petitioner is her petition may also be disposed of b.e case ofWshn.u Prasad Dahire Vs. |7.P. (S) 3264/05]. ^-^^<.-,'•^- ASK& d '.F^^S-S^" la:^ XI-HC—78 an^i vi M* w sn^?i ifct|i°ti Prayeen 1=y ^ '<iWM^, ©Tlly'lto,fsK'IWy 3TI^¥rTR^ (' gtdiw ^fea STR^I z- In view of the submisd parties, fhis petition is disp(|)sed of with liberty t.o the petitioner to make detailed representaticj qii;ti?f4N 'WRif'? fs^> <fa«;i< ^sifrosn^i ions made by leamed counsel for ftie n before respondent No.3 raisins her grievances raised in f|ie petition. On such representation being made, fhe same shajl be considered and decided by the competent autJioriry in t.ei^ms of order passed in the case of (supja), expeditiously^ Sd/- ; -~ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ^ Judge _