IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG ^ BILASPUR Review Petition (^^P^-No. ^^ QF 201^in^e PETITIONER ^^^r ^%sfvv ^y^^' sy °' RESPONDENTS Smt. Reema Sharma, aged about 46 years, W/o Satish Sharma, pccupation - Lecturer, Governnient College of Education, Bilaspur, R/o 114, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Edycation Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director, Public Instructions (D.P.I.) Pensionbada, Raipur (C.G.). 3. District Education Bilaspur (C.G.). Offlcer, 4. Joint Director, Account, Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.). REVIEW PETITION UNDERRULE 90 (1) THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. r%^T" ^*^^- J v^ '^ »<(N<II <t»*n<»» '^Ef "qi^Mq, ^Tll-f-I^Ko, [sldl^iy . ^v. Pjr. IA^). ^J^>1) '^ 200 c\ srr^r "<T^^ (^^ai^T^ sn^i^r^ffcF 1cT8TT 3^1^! SD^jcf) "•V ^OTW^r^i^? Revte^Petition No.84^011 Petitioner Responctents Vei !fi °M<<t<rt<flgl 'RTR^ff ^f f^!^ <rs5'^K ^'sfRrHa^r ses Smt. Reema Sharma StsAe ofChhattJsgarh and @thers chamber Hon'ble Shri Maniridra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 19-09-2011 The writ petition fiied by the|petitioner was disposed off on 28/0^2010 recording that from the pleadin^s anct documents, it is foyraci that the pet'rtioner has not approaehed t|ie respondent author||y claiining sirrtlar beneflt. Now, the review petitjon h^ Instructions regarding grant oftvwj that the petitioner had preferrecj ®been fited by the pet'rtioner steting that eariier also, Principal wrote a l^tter on 16/11/06 to the Drector, F^ibHc increments. It has ateo been now stated rqaresentation on 11/08/2011 which is subsequent to order passed by ^his Court i.e. on 26/06^2010. tn the writ petition, which was flted by th^ petitioner, the petttioner has nowhere pleaded that the Principal had ^ariier wrltten a letter on 1^11/06 to the Director, Public Instructions. Thejrepresentationdated 11/08^2011 tesbeen made subsequent to the order pa^sed by this Court. ^•w^ ^t}rf^ny^ n^^ <'ws[ -i s/i40— 2/2011—1,50,000. ,.-^^J"f"' y l^;. <<l<RtT (^HTctl T^T ^^TFTT^T, ^Tll^4l<o, [^<vll^^< ^^A^.p^- IA^>. 8^|?) ^1:200 ^TT^T^ (^3^F} 3^T "^FT R^Jcb WT ^^! sn^ic?) DceptS ?^TW?ritcf 3?T^i!T -^ Therefore, no~ground of r^viewing tne orcier passea oy inis eourt ® macte out, particulariy in vlew o^ leave it open to the petitione| authority claimlng similar bene| accordance with law. The review petition is ther^fore dismissed. cM^{<rt<fl^ ^li+^rtl ^f fsl<1 Tf^l^K ^3ffiw3?n^r ttie observations that it would be proper to to approach the ooneerned respondent 1t, who shall take decision thereupon, Sn Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^:}w ^t^ gsm^w, u^ r <'r^- -(•s/i 40—2/2011—1,50,000.