Munna Lal Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.6290 of 2016 Munna Lal Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad, Aged About 63 Years Retired Principle At Government Higher Secondary School, Khongapani, Block Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Director, Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. The District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Incharge Principle Government Higher Secondary School, Khongapani, Block Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh)
5. The Principle (Presently Holding The Power Of D.D.O.) Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) For Petitioner : Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For State : Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18/11/2016 (1) Heard.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Principle, Higher Secondary School, Khongapani, Block Manendragarh, District Korea till 31st March, 2016, but salary has not been given to him from 1st August 2015 to 3rd December, 2015, against which, he has made
representation before the respondent No.1, but till this date no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 and, therefore, direction may be issued to the said authority to decide the same, expeditiously.
(3) In view of above, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider and take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (4) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion of the merits of the case and respondent authorities would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law.
(5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-