← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2080/2015disposed off

U. S. Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

2015-06-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2080 of 2015 • U.S. Tiwari, Aged About 54 Years, S/o Late S.C. Tiwari, R/o Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tah. & Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)

2. Chief Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Dist-Mungeli (C.G.)

3. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, DistMungeli (C.G.)

4. Collector, Mungeli, Tah. & Dist-Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri HV Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 17/06/2015 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the petitioner is regularly discharging his duties as AG-III in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, having been attached in the said office by the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Mungeli on 8-102013, the petitioner has not been paid salary for the month of June, 2014. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has submitted representations for payment of the salary for the month of June, 2014, however, the same has not yet been decided. 3.

In view of the nature of claim raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is

disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner submits fresh representation before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today, the said authority shall decide the same within a further period of one month.

4.

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 matter, 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. J U D G E ashu