Shiv Shankar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.5380 of 2005 Shiv Shanker S/o Late Dukhmochan Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Katkona, District Koriya (CG) ---Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG)

2. Management Committee, through Khajurahill High Court Katkona, the Secretary, Distt. Koriya

3. Management Committee Katkona Colliery Education Society through the Principal Distt. Katkona (CG)

4. Khajurahill High School Katkona Through the Principal Distt. Katkona (CG)

5. The District Education Officer Baikunthpur, Koriya (CG)

6. S.E.C.L. through its Chairman cum Managing Director (P) Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG)

7. The General Manager S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur Area Distt. Koriya (CG)

8. Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Katkona Distt. Koriya ---Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs.Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 5 : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A. For Respondent No.6 to 8 : Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Meera Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 15/11/2017

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order dated 16.9.2004 passed by the Management Committee, Khajura Hill High School, Katkona Colliery Katkona Education Society, Korea is stigmatic in nature and salary/subsistence allowance to the

extent of Rs.24360/- has not been paid to the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 would oppose the writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition.

4. From perusal of the documents, it appears that initially the petitioner was appointed for academic session April, 2001 w.e.f. 1.7.2000, thereafter he was re-appointed till his services were discontinued by the impugned order, but it was temporary appointment and he has no right to hold the post. However, it is made clear that any stigmatic observation made by the impugned order 16.9.2004 will not come in way of the petitioner in future employment.

5. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to respondents No.2 and 3 for payment of salary/subsistence allowance. If such a representation is made within two weeks from today, that will be considered and decided by respondents No.2 and 3 expeditiously.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-