Prashant Kumar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5485 of 2021 Prashant Kumar Singh S/o Upendra Singh Aged About 37 Years Working As Teacher (L.B), At Govt. Middle School Madanpur, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh, R/o Behind Kekubai Hostel, Hamalpara, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3.

Principal Govt. Middle School Madanpur, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/10/2021 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be the non-releasing of the salary for the period of August, December of 2018, May, June, August of 2019, February, March, July, August of 2021 (Petitioner got deducted salary of July, 2019 and September, 2019 to January, 2020).

2.

The contention of the petitioner is that during the said period the petitioner was assigned with additional charges as per the order passed by the District Collector and the petitioner has been discharging the duties during the said period, still the respondents have not released the salary for the said period.

3.

Learned counsel for the State however opposing the petition submits that it has to be verified whether the petitioner has in fact physically discharged the duties or not, even against the additional charge which was assigned to the petitioner by the order of the District Collector. 4.

Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute involved in the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition at this juncture can be disposed of directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to verify the aspect as to whether the petitioner in fact has discharged the duties during the relevant period, during which it is alleged that the petitioner has not been paid the salary, particularly the additional charge assigned to the petitioner by the District Collector.

5.

Subject to verification of the aforesaid fact, let respondents No. 2 & 3 take necessary steps pursuant to the outcome of the said verification and in case if the petitioner is found to be entitled for the unpaid salary for the period it be released forthwith.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved