Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Wife oflate Shri S.K. Thaltur, Aged about 50 years, PresenUy posted as Legal Aid Officer, Civil Court premises, Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, 1. throu^i Principal Secretary Law and Legal Affairs, D:|C;S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.a) Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran, throu^i Principal Secretary Durg (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran throu^i Principal Secretary, Bilaspur (C.G.) Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran, 574, South Civi! Lines Jabalpur (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 228/22r6F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF \VRIT IN THE NATLTRE OF MA^'DAMU8, CERETIORARY AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT The petitioner most respectfally submits as under:- -^ 'i ^ %•f^S. ^^ XI-BC—' wn sn^i giiiw % . ^=T •^!iAis(t4, 'yfllyie, ?s|<niy^< ...u.}.-.t-..3.6.o^.Q^............ >.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. M 27.11.2013 garwal Shri Sfaashank Thakur, A.dv< Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Law\ Shri Ashish Shrivastava. Ad •liiii )r Advoca.ie B^respondent No.4. ^cate for the petitioner. ter for the State. ^yocate for respondent No. 2 & 3. |ocate with Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Bv way bfthis petition, the salary commencing ti-om June, petitioaer is seeking arrears of her 1999 to January, 2000, with a!! * .; -' •• ••"• consequential benefits and interest Leamed cpunsel appearin^ for the parties submit that this petition may be disposed of dire| decide the petitioner's representatil Prayer appears to be reasori^ Accordingly, the writ petitij files detailed representation withii1| the same shall be decided by th^ possible preierably within a per^ receiot ofcopvofthis order. bting the respondent authorities to -V .ble and is allowed. m is disposed of If the petitioner a period of one month from today, respondent authorities as early as bd of 3 months from the date of Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge Saiiu/'ashil
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.