Nand Kumar Yadu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 7181 OF 2019 Nand Kumar Yadu, S/o Late Shri D.R. Yadu, aged about 65 years, R/o Ward No.1, Ravanbhata, Pithora, P.S. & Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, through its Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund (CG) 3.

Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) 4.

Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, through its Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund (CG) 5.

Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, through its Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund (CG) 6.

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/09/2019 1.

Grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is the non-granting of consequential benefits for the period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension, i.e., from 6.10.2016 to 11.4.2017. 2.

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending a departmental enquiry and the said departmental enquiry has resulted in the exoneration of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits for the period during which he was under suspension. 3.

The petitioner in this regard had already made a representation to respondents no. 2 & 4, which till date has not been finalized by them. 4.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let respondents no. 2, 4 & 5, the concerned authorities under whom the petitioner was posted at the relevant point of time, take appropriate decision so far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits between 6.10.2016 to 11.4.2017 is concerned, i.e., the period of suspension of the petitioner.

5.

Let this exercise be completed by respondents no. 2, 4 & 5 at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6.

It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondents no. 2, 4 & 5 so far as the order passed by this Court today is concerned. 7.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/