High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5834/2017disposed off

Mani Ram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5834 of 2017 • Mani Ram Yadav S/o Shri Shivnarayan Yadav, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Service, Working As Block Education OfÏcer Bagicha District Jashur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

4. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

5. Block Education OfÏcer, Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. AN Pandey, Advocate For Respondent /State Ms. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 6/11/2017

(1) Heard.

(2) Challenge in this petition is not against any particular order, but the present petition is preferred by the petitioner, who is working on the post of BEO, against the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities for not paying his salary for the period

from June 2015 to 20.4.2016, without assigning any reason.

(3) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner has made several representations earlier, but the same has not been decided till date, therefore, he may be permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities raising his grievance in respect of his salary.

(4) No objection from the other side.

(5) Looking to the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent authorities within a period of 04 weeks and thereafter, the competent authorities are directed to consider and decide his representation in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of its submission along with a certified copy of this order.

(6) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law on its own merits.

Sd/- J u d g e (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna