IN THE HIGH COURT OF ^UDICAT!JRE CHHATTISGARH 'iT BTL7.SPUR c,H^ ^- PETITIOW3R w ^'.••''i^~~A-v (^/^ ,..%y' ^<^^'' . ^.-y ^•' •£~~ / ^•'^p' ^;-?" RSSPOMDENTS i-fRIT PSTITTON wo. ^!''?5 OF 2001 ^,-' Rajendra Ku-er Parihar, Son of Shri Kallram, Aged about 30 yep.rs, Rssldent of Villac'e; Sonvarsha Worklnq as Panchavafc Karrnl/ PanchaygA Secrefcary of Gram Psnchayat Sonvarsha, Tahsil & Disfcrict! Kawardha Chhatt isqsrh. V E p. S U S (l 5^t'ollector.Kawardha Distrj.et Kawardh ^•- .,.!?» (2)^Sub Divisional Orficer, Kawardha, District; Kawardha Chhattisqarh. (3) Gram Panchayat Sonvarsha, Through: Its Sarpanch,Smt. Keshar Bai at Sonvarsha, Tahsil S< District: Kawardha. Chhatt isqarh. ^RIT PST-ITION UNDER^_ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF II.TDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ^l^^^^b.... iss^^sy!t*t Single Bench: Hon'ble Sfari Satish K. .^nihotrl, J. Petitioner : Rajendra Klim.ar ParUiar Versus Respondeuts ; CbUector, Kawardha aiid others fe^^tg^s •esent: Shri Rajneesh Siagh Baghel, counsel for tiie petitiouer. Sliri Sandeep Dubey, Goverruiient Advocat.e for ttie respondents No. 1 and 2/State. Siat. Reiiu Kochar, courisel for ftie respondent No. 3. Sth February, 200S) 1. Leamed coiinsel for the pe'dtioner subinits fhat the petitioner was workhig as Pajichayat Karmi ui yUlage Pancha]7at Sonbarsa, Tahsil aiid District Kaivpjdha., Semce of the petitioner was tenitinated from the post of Panchayat Kanni vide order dated 4.3.2001 (Annexure P-1). 2. The petitioner filed aii appeal before tlie Siib Divisioiial Officer in Revenue • Case No. 94-B/121/2000-2p01. Tlie Sub Dhdsional Officer, Kawardha, wide his order dated 4.5.2001 (Annexure P-2), disraissed the appeal. 3. At fhis stage, leamed counsel appeaniig for fh.e petitioiier submits fb.at fhe petitioner be graRted liberfr/ to Sle the statutoiy appeal/revision before tlie Senior OfHcer as provided iinder Ru3e 5 of the C.G. Paiichayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and Rule 15 aiid 16 of tiie C.G. Panchayat Se.rvice (Discipliiie and Appeal) Rules, 1999, to which lea_nied counsel for fhe respondents have no objection. In case the revision/ appeal, as stated above, is f3ed witliin a period of tswo weeks, the same niay not be disniissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner is accordiiigly granted liberty to Eiove appropriate aufhority under the provisions of law 4, For tlie reasons stated above, fhe writ petition is disiniased as ^irifhdrani. ______ -. _. Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu