A BEFQRE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. i^ »4 Of 2001 PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 AND 2:27 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .«•'' ^' PETITIONER : MaksudanPrasad.Yadav.sonofRamAvtarYadav, Peon, DistrictElectionOffice, Distt. Rajnandgaon CMiattisgarh. VERUS ^RESPONDENTS : 1. State ofM.P. Tbroughthe Secretary Law and Legal Department, Electionworks Department, State Government ofM.P. Bhopal(M.P.) 2. ChiefElectionOfficer, MadhyaPradesh, Madhyamik Siksha Mandal Parisar, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Collector,Rajnandgaon(C.G.) 4. SeGretary,theGeneral Administration Department Govemment ofM.P. Bhopal (M.P.) 5. StateAdministrativeTribunal, Through its Member Judicial RaipurBench, NearClock Tower, Kuchari Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) DETAILSOFPETITION:- 1. PARTICUIARSOFTHEPETITIONER:-Asaboveintitle. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS :- As above in title. ORDER AGAmST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEmG MADE:- ^o£29, \y^" s^y^' >'''„*•••' .••' A^^'s^^' .^^^1' ^ ^v:^" HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE Wrlt Pe-tition No. 404 of 2001 Maksudan Prasad Yadav V. State of K.y. & ors. OR D E R The following order of the Court was passed by R.S. Garg.J.- By this petition uader Article 227 of the Constitution o£ India, the petltioner seeks to challenge the correetness, validity and propriety o£ the order dated 31.8.1999and 15.12.1999 passed in O.A.No.242 of 1999 by learraed Meniber (J^udicial), M.P. Admin.lstrative Tribunal, Raipur. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petJ-tloner who was working as temporary employee witb the respondent submitted a petition before the State Administrative Trlbanal praying that he be regularised on the post held by bim. During the pendency of the petltion, the petitioner made an appllcatj-on seeking aa interim relJsef that the appli.cant was appointed till 31.8.99 and as tbe respondent no.4 had ordered that the vacant post be filled by way of absorptl.on and as the petitioner was not absorbed on the said post the applieant be permitted to contlnue. Tbe learned Member ef the Trlbunal granted fctaelnterim relief in-favour of the petitioner directing that if the applicant was not alcea.Sy terni.nated he would not be t.enninated till next date of heajylng. While A. €) •2- •SM directing so, the Trlbunal further ordered that if in future the petitioner was not held entitled to any rellef or was unable to prove his case, then be shall not be entitled to any salary for the period beyond 31.8.1999. 3. Tbe matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 15.12.1999. It was finally heard and the Tr.i.bunal ordered that tbe non-applicants shall consi.(3er tbe case o£ the present petitioner and if the case o£ tbe petitioner is found similar to the case o£ A.nll Lakbera v. State o£ H»p. , then tbe respondents stiall appoint tbe applicant/petitioner on regular basis against the avallable vacanfc post or against the post whieh may fall vacant in near future subject to their veriflcation and satisfaction regarding entitleraent of tbe applicant on the basis of surplus employees in E-Grade. While disposing of the petition, the learned Tribunal also ordered that in view of the order dated 31.8.99 the applJ.cant would not be entitled to any salary. 4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner bad worked for the period from 31.8.99 to 15.12.99, therefore, he is entltled to the salary and the period spent by him on duty between31.8.99 and 15.12.99 deserves to be counted towards tbe period spent in servlce. -- 5. Learnedpounsel for the State. bowever, contended that in viewOf the order dated 31.8.99 and tbs said order was not challenged till final disposal of tbe Original Application, the petitioner is not entitled to any relie^ L -1t] ^ Ji';!:i —3* 6« Undisputedly the pet.i.tioner worked for the period fran 31.8.99 to 15,12.99. It is unheard that a goverrmient servant wbo works on the post would not be entitled to any salary simply because of some interim order of a Tribunal or Court. True it is that the Trlbunal made such an order on 31.8.99 but In the opinion qif thls Court the C4»^>-(!^u<^ said ordee cannot be adh%z-*ia^)te«>-. If under the interim relief granted by the Tribunal the petitioner was allowed to occupy the post and permitted to work. then it is expected of tbe governnient that respecting the labour it would pay -the salary to the said labour and would not seek protection >• A.t>|»-tl/^ under some order whlcb otberwise cannot be ad)*axed<-t&< As the petitioner had worked wi-th the respondenb from 31.8.99 to 15.12.99, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to his salary for the said per-lod. The period betweeh 31.8.99 and 15.12.99 was in fact spent by the petitioner on duty, there- fore, the said period has to be counted by tbe authorities as period spent towards duies. 6« The petition to tbe extent xndicated above 1s allowed. No costs» Sd/- Chief Justice 2-5-2001 Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge 2-5-2001 Nair/'