^ cws )<rs^r t^^?Si BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No. <73^of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^.•••^'. ^s^ ^s3"' yv' >./ ^ ^y ^' ^ Parkhit Ram Dansena, S/o Dhaniram Dansena, aged about 45 years, working as Choukidar, Govt. Middle School Mura, Tahsil- Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. "'State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Tribal Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ..///' 2.' Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ,/ 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Murlidhar Sharma, S/o Keshav Prasad Sharma, Assistant Grade - III, Govt. High School Bijna, BIock-Tamnar, (Raigarh) Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Shyam Sunder Patel, S/o Jageshwar Prasad, aged about 38 years, Assistant Grade -III, Govt. Office of the Block Office Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. '•^.'^ C XI-HC-22 ^ r ^iiiiid^^ ®ti)<i'is,(»«II'H>I,< Sd^T TR^ *<IHMI Shllcb ira^ _\^^:.U^...S±']^]l(y ra;-1''^""''--1-^--'-""'^ 200 ^v^ss' STI^T^iT t<<-fi<* snt?i s^HI^^f^d sn^i ^^'iWHfta chi^<n^Ti 'Fn^if ^ f^t <f^i^i<. ^; srfigq gir^r |S.B.: HOM'BLB JUSTICE MR. PRIT 113-12-2010; Shri Harish Khuntiya, counse Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. foi Heard on adiaission. By fhis petition, the petitione] ^lirection to grant of proinotion Ibenefits. It is subiQitted fhat the the State. has prayed for issuance of ^ifh. aU the consequential betitioner who was iaitially working as dafly wage eniployee wifji effect fi-oin 19.10.87, later Accoriiag to the petitioner but has not been ion was reffularized in tlie year 20091 ifhough he has been reRularized 'proinotion on the post ofAssistaat (^rade-III. Couasel for the petitiouer sub^iaits th.at his representation dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/f) is pendmg before tiie coinpetent autttority aiid at fhis s age, the purpose wouM be served if he niay be permitted to wlitlidraw tbis petition with a direction to the coinpetent aufho representation of the petitioner. State counsel subinits that lel representation to the concemed rily to decide the pendinj the petitioner dake a fresh auttioritv and he has no objection if any direction is beujig issued for representation ia accordance with l^c ing his w. Accordingly, the petitioner is penaitted to wifhdraw this petition wifh liberty to m.ake a fresh representation to the authority couceraed wifhia a perifjid of three weeks' from. the date of receipt of copy of fhis oriej fi'oia fhe authorities coDcemed td [• aad in tum it is expected decide tlie saine withia a r^-afi; i .• Bn =F XI-HC-22 '3"T "lll'illd'il, ©•nlu'is,(««vll*llj,< 3TI^?T ^S^R H11CTI **1|ch "^ 200 i^^T" an^r^ R-ti.'ti 311^1 st)^icti -tifid 311^1 ^RIiSR'(rf^f cti|'4l(vt<Tl') 'ETFI^ff ^ f^E^ ^•W-1^ ^aiPan 311^1 further period of six mortttis froiju the date of its receipt, in accordance wifh law. It is inade clear fhat fhis <t< opinion on nierits of fhe case would be at Ubertv to decide fhe stricfly ia accordaace with law. ipourt has not expressed aay E|nd ihe authority conceraed r^presentatioa oftJie petitioner Sd/- Pritmker Diwakar Judge [•^ ?;feA