Sukhendra Pratap Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1262 of 2015 • Sukhendra Pratap Singh S/O Shri Satya Raj Singh, Aged About 27 years R/O 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Infront Of Dr. Shukla House, Bilaspur, Post Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, (C.G.)

2. Director, Social Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, (C.G.)

3. The Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur, (C.G.)

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bijapur, District Bijapur, (C.G.)

5. Dy. Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, District Bijapur, (C.G.)

6. Shri Yogesh Yadav Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Usoor, District Bijapur, (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 10/04/2015 1.

Petitioner is working as Panchayat Inspector since 11/11/2011, however, monthly salary from May 2013 to August 2013 and January 2014, February 2014 and May 2014 to March 2015 has not been paid. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has also filed representation before the respondent authorities, but the same is not being considered.

3.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the State would submit that if the petitioner submits fresh representation along with copy of the petition before the

concerned competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation before the concerned competent authority within a period of one month from today, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representations along with copy of this order.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case. JUDGE Kamde