^ t^ \^y-^ m THE HIGH COURT W CHHATTISOARH AT BIU^SPUR CC.GJ Writ Petition (S) No. S6'^ /2010 Petitioner ?10<-^j ^^'ti^ .vx.-'-<';;"?^.'.'."-- -•^y\"&^-^"" >,^^" ^- ^.^\.^v-" Respondents ^^w^^. Madan Lal Nag, Son of Shri B.R.Nag, Age 47 years, Sub Engineer - incharge Asstt. Engineer, Rurat Engineering Department Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.). Versus (1) State ofChhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , (2) The Development Commissioner, Panchayatand Rural Development Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^r-v^ fe"^, ^'^-yHC-78 3T1^T "^Y f<-lJ4» ^^n 3»n^rsfi^i^ 75T T^i^i<n'^, «i'<i)y4i'o, fsicniyy ___ ___ ^f.^.r^)^" <^2r\ /' '!?TORTwm^"""^"K"'"L^/""v"u;r""""^"1 3TT^?T 'TT5R? ( ^^<sl<^) Co 00 ^^<nW ^f^a 3^?T cni^i^€fllTTW^if "^* feT:2t if^i^K ^atRTH3^T SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PlUTINKBR DIWAKBR 05.10.2010 Shri S.S.Rajput, counsel Spr fhe petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for the State. Grievance of fhe petifionejr in ftie present petition is fhat fhough his sen^ices have been |pegularized on fhe post of Sub- engiaeer but he has not been ^lven the correct seniority in fhe gradation Mst. Shri Rajput subiaits fhat if the petitioner is permiftted |ends ofjustice would be served |to withdraw fhis petition and receipt of copy of tliis order^ it authority to decide the same asj It is made clear that thifc opiaiou on inerite of the cas4 direction be issued to the State aufhorities to decide the pendtng representation of fhe ^etitioner (Annexure P/4), fiiled collectively. State coiinsel submits th4t let the petitioner make a fresh detaUed representation to the cj^nipetent authority aad ia tum the same would be decided ia a^cordaace witihi law. Accordiagly, fhe petitionejr is permitted to withdraw this petition. In fhe eventuality of ^naking fresh representation by fhe petitioner withia a period ^pf one inonth froxsi the date of jis expected froxn the competent expeditiously as possible. » Court has not expressed any and fhe autliority concemed would be at Uberty to decide 1(he same stdctiy in accordaiice with law. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker judge