[gx @ gmgEe awmh C“; lgv/f BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S)N0. HHS? /2oog Qnumant’ Singh Sisodiya, aged almul 63 years, son of Late B. Sisodiya, reth’ed Lecturer, District Education and Training Institute (Zila Shiksha Evam Prashikshan Sanstha), Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh R/o. Civil Lines, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS Petitioner /' State of Chhattisgarh, through the Respondents 1. Secretary, Department of School Education, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director — Lok Shikshan Sanchalnaiaya Raipur (CG) 3. gm Director, (Treasury, Accounts and Pension) Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 4. {/‘District Treasury Officer, Distt. Raigarh (CG) (The Principal, District Education and Training Institute (Zila Shiksha Evan) Prashikshan Sanstha), Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ,Mnr-ucuriugcmgmEPEIIIM: As per cause title. ./ 4 \ / <>“%\ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT"T13GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No, 4452 0f2009 PETITIONER : Hanumant Singh Sisodiya. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotl'i. J. Present: Shri A.N.Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.M00Ithy, Dy. AG. far the State/respondents. Smt. Kamni Puri, Principai, DETI, Dharamjaigarh, in person. ORDER ORAL v (Passed on 29 day of March, 2010) Smt. Kamni Puri, Principai District Education & Training Institute, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, is present in person pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by this Court. She submits that there was no intention not to comply with the judicial orders passed by this Court. There might‘have been some discrepancy, that may be pardoned and Either submits that she shall be careful in tuture. She thither contends that the order of recovery of the excess payment has already been quashed and the petitioner has been paid all his retiral dues as stated in para 5 ofthe explanation submitted by the respondent No. 5. 2. The explanation offered by the respondent No. 5 is accepted. 3. In View of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition and this petition has become infiuctuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become intructuous. mt l i l ' Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge ' i Arnit