SiNGlE 8EWC IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W. P. S. N0. ^gSf OF 2010 s?" Khem Singh Thakur S/o Shri Sohan Singh Thakur, aged about-37 years, Panchayat Secretary R/o village- Banihani, Tahsil- Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^' f J ^^ <%f A^? -?/^ n//T ^J ^^K^^^ ^y\ ^^—^ ^ wy^'y WRIT 1.' State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raipur, (C.G.). 3. Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster (C.G.) 4. Collector, Jagdalpur Distt. Baster (C.G. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Kondagaon Distt. Baster (C.G.) 6. Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat, Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.). 7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Hangawa, Janpad Panchayat, Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.). ^ff-'-'' 8. Shrawan Kumar Korram S/o Faganu Ram Korrara, aged about-28 years, R/o village- Bahinani, Tahsil- Kondagaon, Distt. Baster (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ite\*^ "^'./" CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^a&^ f^^"\ ^TR^fl^lW^ ~3~^ ^FIT^T, '^fi^FT^, f®)<Yit<-llj,< ..^.!)..&.l..^,.^.^.s2i^ 31T^?T 'q^^' (^f^^T) ^Ti^i'^1'^h? ^T^T W^TWRW SB : Hon'ble Shri Ivlanindra IVJohan -^ l^rw^^a^T 23-05-2010 Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, coun^ Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, R No.1 to5. Learned counsei for the petiti^ner termination passed on 23/07/03, petiti| it is aiso stated that the representatiolt been decided. On the other hand, submissiorS that under the provisi'ons of Panchay^ts rernedy is av-aiiabie to the petitioner any revision to the higher authonty ag^inst Submjssion of leamed counsei beiated as the petjtioner was terminat^c Considering the submEssions inciined to entertain this petition as tll under the ruies of 1995. in case, an^l open for the respondent to consider rnade clear that this Court has not exrf case and it vviil be open for the Deput^ (Annexure P-10) vyhlch has aiready VVith the aforesaid observation^ '^F?fepft?T 'HP^?? ^ ^^ ipsii^K ^'3?ftR3T^¥!1 >el for the petitioner. ynei Lawyer for the State/respondents submits that against the order of oner has been rnaking representations. 1 made by the petitioner, so far has not arid ag^inst the of learned counsei for respondents Is (Appeal and Revlsion) Ruies, 1995, infact the petitioner has not preferred ^inst the order of the Deputy Director. ior the State Is that the petition Is highiy :4d in the year 2003. i-nade by the partSes, thSs Court Is itot |ere exlsts the rernedy of fiiing revlsion such revision is preferred, It wouid be |he sarne In accordance with iaw. it Is jressed any opinion cn the nierits of the Director to consider the representation fiied by the petitjonei\ |, the petition is tlnaiiy disposed off« beien Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r'