Smt. Bijenti Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Smt. Bijenti Ekka, W/o. Shri P. C. Ekka, aged about 42 years, Principal, Govt. Gurukul School Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ; \^" 0\^>;" L..^" .S^N €^y'^•••••"" RESPONDENTS :
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^'
Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Principal, Govt. Gurukul School Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Treasury Officer, Treasury Account and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^- t .^ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON rS) No. 5613 of2011 PETmONER : Smt. Bijenti Ekka. RE8PONDENT8 VER8US State ofCJahattisgmli & Otfaers. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF THE CQNSTlTmiON OF WSSA. SB: Hon*ble Shri Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant V^rma, Advoc^te forAe p^titioner Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respottd^its. ORDER (Passed on 02nd day of March, 2012) 1. By this petitioiL the petitioner seefcs a direetion to fhe respendesits to pay two advance increments from the date ofpassmg ofB.Ed. exammation, on her own expenses. before enteimg into sen?rice.
2. Leamed counsel a^earing for the petildoaer subnuts tihat the issue invotwditi the present ease m tto longa* w^ mtegm as&e saa^a^ l$as beesi considCTed and decided by the Supfeme Court mJI^Aa Saxenav. State of ' MP. <& €>rA as wsll as by tiiis Court w.Yashwant Kumar Sharadweyv. .Municipal €orporation, Di£rg and another^.
3. I^ajmed ^oimsel fiirti^ the imrtairt petftion is ^quarely xx^^red l>y ttie decisions (sirpra) as aforestated. Thu^ the petitioner may r bepeniritted to tii^ke ^yq^ aforasteted decisions, subject to verification oftti^ fects.
4. Lea^ned counsel appearing for tfae State submits tih^t m tiie eveii^.tie petitioner makes a representation. the same will b^ coiisldered ^aiid J decided, m accofdance wdtfa law and in tfae li^rt oftliede<^si<»sdFllhe^ Supreme CourtmAsha Saxena (supra) as well as Ifais Court ia r<aiaf^wo»( Kumar Bharadwaj (supra) within a period of six weeks j&oni the <tete of receipt of the representations.
lai view of foregoing, according to the leamed coiiiisel appearitig for the petitioner^ nothing siiryives in tfcds petition for adjudicati<m.
Accordmgly., the writ petition is disposed o£ Amit l2009(ili)MPJR(SC)59 22006(ii)'NPJR^G96 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.