(3 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA'EURE AT BILASPUR (C.G«) QV.TWES8 \^-f. rly,2-a5>J- oF-T-^y PE2ITIONEA ••^y r*7..:-'^v £\c^'^'' ^^ ~"r.. .^'rh.?" <•" x^:?-< ^yy ^ ..-" ,.•• ^/ YOGESHWAR DHA8 QIWAN AGE -54 YEAKS SON OF SHBI RAMESHWAROHAR DIWAN POSTEO. AS ASSISTANI TEACHER AI - PRIMARf SCHOOL, KUSAMI, 3LOCK EOUCA'riON OFFICE-BERLA DISTRICS - DURG (C.G«) 9/0 25/196, BSAMHAN PARA. RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS RESPOiroENIS ^•^s^^' 1. STATE QS GHHATTISGAKH THBOUGH - THE SECRETARlT SCHBGL EDUCATION DEPAR'mENT D.K.S.BHAWAN, RAIPUR (G.G.) 2. THE BIRECTOR, PUBLIC XNSIRUG-riON, CHHATTISGARH, RAIPUR (C.G.) 3. BISTRICT EQUCATION OFFICSR, BEMETARA, DI STRICT-DU K3 (C.S.) 4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER. BEBLA, DISTRXCT-DUBG tC.G.) WRXT PETITION UNQER ARTICLE-2f6 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION w' OF INDXA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitipn No. 2291 of 2003 Pctitioner Yogeshwar Dhar Diwan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Sin^e Bench : Honlile Mr. Justice Strtish K. Affiihotri, Shri R. K. Kesherwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Suniit Verma, Pauel lawyer for the respondeiits. ORALORDER ( 6& May, 2006) The foUowmg order of thc Court was passed by Satish K. Agiihotri, J. 1. The petitioner has ffled fhis petition for the foUowing reliefs:- "a. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue aii appropriate writ or dircction to the Respondents for coasidering aad aUowing the Voluntary RetLreinent ftoro. Services ofthe Petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.99 on the basis ofapplication/notice dt. 1.1.1999 (Armexure-P/6). b. Your Lordship inay be pleased to aUow the consequential benefits ofservices after the cousideration ofV.R.S. application. c. May be pleased to quash the departmeatal enquiiy proceeding which is pending unnecessarily wifhout any reasons. d. May be pleased to allow any other relief as may be deemed fit and cost ofPetition inay be allowed." 2. It is submitted by learaed counsel for fhe petitiouer fhat the petitioner has filed the origiiial appUcation, being O.A.No. 503/2001, for the same reUef, as sought for in this petition. In view of the pendency of one petition, fhe second petition for fhe same relief agauist the same cause ofactioa cannot be niauitauied. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute fhe stateuient that fhe cause of action aad fhe prayer ia the origiaal application are the same as in the prcseat petition. 4. For fhe reasons stated above, fhis petition is disinissed as not inaintainable. No order as to costs. - Satish K. Agiiihotri Judge