High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2673/2019disposed off

Janardan Giri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-04-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2673 of 2019 Janardan Giri S/o Late Shri D. Giri, Aged About 61 Years, R/o District Jail Line, Kabirdham, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Jail, Mahanadi Bhwan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director General, Office Of Director General, Department Of Jail And Correctional Services, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Jail Superintendent, Office Of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Jailor, District Jail, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey with Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates.

For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10.04.2019

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has sought in this writ petition is for a direction to respondents 2 & 3 to take an appropriate decision on the leave application of the petitioner on medical ground

for the period from 11.07.2015 to 22.07.2015 and also for consideration of his salary for the period that he had worked from 02.07.2015 to 06.07.2015.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that right from 2015 the petitioner has been repeatedly making representations in this regard but till date no decision has been taken.

3. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has raised, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if respondents 2 & 3 are directed to take a decision on the application of medical leave that the petitioner has submitted for the period 11.07.2015 to 22.07.2015 and also for grant of salary for the period from 02.07.2015 to 06.07.2015 during which it is said that the petitioner had discharged his duties. Let respondents 2 & 3 take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding entitlement of the petitioner. It shall be responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondents 2 & 3 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai