Pannalal Sen v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 134 of 2016 • Pannalal Sen S/o Kamta Prasad Sen, Aged About 56 Years R/oNew Sabji Mandi, Ward No. 14, Manendragarh, Civil & Revenue District- Korea, (Chhattisgarh),.......(Petitioner). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Civil & Revenue DistrictRaipur, (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Civil & Revenue DistrictRaipur, (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Principal, Government Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Odgi, Surajpur, District- Surajpur.

4. The Principal, Government Lahari College, Chirmiri, District- Korea, (Chhattisgarh).

5. Dr. B.K. Dahariya (Principal), Government Naveen Mahavidyalaya, Odgi, District- Surajpur, (Chhattisgarh),......(Non-Applicants). ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer on advance copy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 26/09/2016 1.

Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks clarification of the order dated 25.07.2016 passed in WPS No. 1180 of 2016 (Pannalal Sen vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) on the submission that the petitioner's claim of salary is not confined for the period as stated in para 4 of the order, but, from July 2014.

3.

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's claim of salary is subject to verification.

4.

This Court while disposing off the petition, observed that unless there is an order of recovery, salary of the petitioner should not have been withheld. It was further stated that if the petitioner is working on the post, his salary should not have been withheld. The State counsel made statement before this Court that salary bill of the petitioner has been prepared and submitted for payment of salary for the period from 09.11.2015 to April, 2016. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition was disposed off. 5.

The petitioner's claim for salary from July, 2014 shall also be duly considered by the respondents because it appears that though the salary bill for payment of salary in respect of period from 09.11.2015 to April, 2016 was prepared as stated before this Court earlier, petitioner's claim for salary from July, 2014 to 09.11.2015 shall require scrutiny. The respondent shall either pay salary for entire period i.e. from July 2014 to April, 2016 or if for any period of salary is decided to withheld, speaking order shall be passed within a period of 30 days.

6.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands finally disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra