IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. l Z! L / 2005 Kd\ /' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF E INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER /_Aw ‘ PETITIONE 4 / :Khorbahara Ram Ganjeer ‘ ¢&\>“ ‘ S/o Laxman Singh Ganjeer \ ff Aged about 59 years ( (7/... _. § . Occupation- Revenue Inspector, a ; ‘ 0g “fa _ wo— Modipur, Ward No-s, . ‘ gyft’ / ' House No-153, Sitlapara ~ 7 f, $$§ff/J‘? V v D't—R' 1s ajnandg0an(C.G‘) § ‘é ‘v‘ IQgv$ I ‘ Q‘ §£ f? Versus i \ RESPONDENTS, . /’ 1. State or c.G 7 Through Revenue Department, D.K;S Bhawan Raipur (C.G) x 2. Collector Rajnandgoan (C.G) / 3. Superintendent Land Revenue Office Rajnandgoan (C.G) ‘ XI—HC-22 EW,W,W Wm X/4AA ® vale. Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, counsel br the petitioner. Shn' Akhil Ag a], Panel lawyer for the Respondents. I for the petitioner suBmits that the Learned coun petitioner was acquitted hum the charges under section 7 o the Prevention of f ‘ p’u'on Act, 19%” by onier dated. 24.9.2001 pawed y the Special Judge (Pmvenh'on of Corrupn'on Aot) in S ial Case No. 3/97. Pmsuant to the acquittal of the petit the suspension of the peiitioncr was i r xevoked vide order ated 21.7.2003. The petitioner claims 'd, he remained under suspension on ‘ o account of pendency of the case befom the Special Judge. Lealned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the suspension has been levoked the IeSpondeuts cannot leject th’e claim of the petitioner for back wages on the yound that the appeal is pending befote the hist appellate Court. Mr. Agarwal, leamed counsel for the mspondents does not dispute v the hots as stated by the learned counsel for the petiu'oner. back wages for the (what) m “ WW m 200 ’ W ‘ WWW WW£ffsQhmn %3T%w311%31 2.9.2005 XI—HC-22 EW,W,W 3mm ‘43—? “Al/ref” mm a1 200 m WWW§WIWK éu‘mm ' : of back wages in View In View of the fomgoing, the peiition stands disposed of with thc obsexvation that if the petitioner makes a representation within a pen‘od of 15 days mam today, the lespondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for gent ~ of the fact that his suspension has been A revoked vide‘ older dated4 249.200 nd decide they ’ representation Within a period of six weeks hom the date of receipt ’of the representation. ‘ , , a Ce iTed copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agni’hotri Judge (@W)