High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2147/2017disposed off

Narendra Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-05-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2147 of 2017 • Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Sant Ram Verma, Aged About 34 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar Mova Raipur P/s Pandri Mova Raipur Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Superintendent of Police, South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

3. Inspector General, South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Arvind Dubey, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 05/05/2017

1. While the petitioner was posted at Dantewada, he received gun shot injuries on 06.10.2014 on account of firing by co-employee. During his sickness, he applied for sick leave, which was allowed by making payment of the full salary for the period, however, by the impugned order (Annexure P-1), the Superintendent of Police, South Bastar, Dantewada has converted the said period of sick leave into 90 days of earned leave, 120 days of half pay leave and 124 days of leave without pay (LR 24). As a consequence of the impugned order, the Superintendent of Police has directed recovery of Rs.1,56,915/- from the petitioner's salary.

2. It appears, the petitioner has moved representation before the Inspector

General of Police, Bastar Range on 09.04.2016, which is yet to be decided on merits.

3. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event, the petitioner prefers fresh representation before the I.G. Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, within a period of one month from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation, on its own merits, by a speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

4. Till the petitioner's representation is decided by the I.G., no further recovery shall be made from petitioner's salary.

5. 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. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu