In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a school headmaster, the Single Judge disposed of the matter by relying on precedents, holding that when a petition is ripe for decision under existing orders, it need not be examined further.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Q9
V” (fir/9" Wf
1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR wwww @mm% W.P.(S.) NO. M 1/? /20l2 \ ‘
PETITIONER:
Manrakhan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Sunder Lal Sahu, aged about 58 years, Working as Headmastcr, Govt. Primary School, Hasuwa, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.)
VERSUS
State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School 'D.K.S. Education Department Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)
RESPONDENTS 1)
The District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar, (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.)
Joint Director Accounts Treasury and Pension Raipur District Raipur (co) \w"‘”‘“r"
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The petitioners most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under :
- PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERt—
As stated given in the cause title above,
WWWH ’IWV\ rr M‘ t/H ‘ w“
MmH mmm m: mwmmmmw mmmm
$kNGLE EsENcH : Hmmww was WMHMW 34mm mwm. J.
Wnmm Ngm m mm
F’EWTmNER Manrakhan La} $ahu,
Vergua
RE$PQNDENT$ State of Chhattiwarh and othersx
WRW PETWMN UNDER ARTICLE 22$ OF THE {$0NSTITUTION 9F WDm.
Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsei for petitioner. $hri AV. Shridhar, Fame! Lawyer fm” the: State.
CDRAL ORIDER {mimizm2}
X Learned counae$ for the names do mi o’ESpute thai the cmtrwerw ‘xhe invmveri in Ms petiiinn ii; squarely covered hy the mxier m matter a? Yaghwam Kumar $hamwaj V3. Municima! {M‘Qmm’aa'mn {Ming aim «Simmer 2W6 (I!)MWR(2G. $336 {and ampegh Kumm' Kim‘nm VS.”Wm 3mm Gmw, af Chhaitmgarh and ammm’fWR (3) Na. aimwwwj
”‘
’% in View oi the foragoing, naming fauwives mihi$ petitionandihewrit pe’iiiiani$acmrdirigiydi$p0$edc)?
Sd//-
Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition relating to a revision in pension is squarely covered by the Madhya Pradesh Judicial High Court order warranting disposal without examination of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yashwani Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and anotherReferred¶29
Yashwani Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Durg and another 2006 (2) MPJH(206, 336
Ganesh Kumar Kimank VS. State of Chhattisgarh and anotherReferred¶29
Ganesh Kumar Kimank VS. State of Chhattisgarh and another MPJH(3) No. T12/001
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manrakhan Lal Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Department
District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar
Block Education Officer, Block Kasdol
Joint Director Accounts Treasury and Pension, Raipur
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
