High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/820/2017dismissed

D.D. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 820 of 2017 • D.D. Sahu S/o Shri K. R. Sahu, Aged About 59 Years Lecturer, Government Multi- Purpose Higher Secondary School, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. District Education Officer, Block Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

3. Block Education Officer, Block Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Tarun Dadsena, Advocate For State:

Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 20.02.2017

1. The substantive relief sought in the present Writ Petition is Relief No. 10.2 and 10.3 of the Writ Petition:

"10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, appropriate Writs/direction / order commanding to the respondents to pay interest @12 p.a. to the Petitoiner for the delayed payment of salary from 09.11.1994 to 17.05.2006.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, appropriate writs / direction/ order commanding the respondents to pay amount of Rs. 8,211/- deducted from the salary amount of the petitioner because of its payment by the Respondent No.2 and 3 one time as well as to give salary increment to the Petitioner from the

year 1994."

2. A perusal of the record would show that for the same set of issue the present Petitioner had earlier filed Writ petition i.e WPS No. 1778/2015 and the said Writ Petition got dismissed on the ground of delay vide the judgment dated 08.05.2015. The said judgment was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 343/2015 which was decided on 16.07.2015. This Court was also party to the order passed in the Writ Appeal.

3. In the light of the earlier Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal being decided for the same set of facts this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition for the same relief as sought for earlier.

4. The present Writ Petition thus deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE kishore