^ y q^) nIIGH COD'RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RESPONDENTS WRFT PETITION CS) No. 2263 of2009 N.R.Garad S/b Shri Devji Rao, aged about 54 years, Sub Engiiieer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar R7o village Fingeshwar, District Raipur (C.G.) WSiSVS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Deparfaiieat of Panchayat aad Rural Development, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Treasurer, District Treasury OfSce, Raipur (C.G.) WRFT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF WDlA SB: Hpn'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Sliri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for State/respondeate 1 and 3. ~ 2. (Passed on 01st day of May, 2009) By ttus petition, the petitioner impugns ttie order dated 24.01.2009 wherebythe absence ofthe petitioner from 31.7.2006 to 03.06.2007 was treated as extraordinary leave and consequently, he vvas denied salan.' for the said period. The facts, in nutshell, are that fhe petitioner, vide order dated 30 June, 2006 (Annexure P/2) was transferred from Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar to Janpad Panchayat Gariyabaad, District Raipur. The petitioner was relieved from Fingeshwar on 31.07.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being No. 1190/2007 before this Court. This Court, on fhe request of leamed counsel for the petitioner, penTtitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to make a representation before the authorities concemed. The authorities conceiTted, it appeare, having considered his representation, cancelled the order dated 30 June. 2006 bv order dated 28.05.2007 ('Aiuiex-ure P/6) and the absence /' .'• is '^-.^ 4. o. of the petitioner was treated as extraordinan' leave for payment of salarv. Shri Prajapati, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since tlie order oftransfer was cancelied subsequently, the petilioner is entitled to salaiy for the full period and treating the period ofabsence as extraordinari' leavs, is improper and illegal. Havmg considered the argiiments of leai-ned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is a case where the petitioner, aS.er filing petition before this Court and after haviiig been relived, remained abseot perhaps waitine for decision in the writ petition as well as in the representation and did not work am^vhere until the transfer order was cancelled on 28.05.2007. It is therefore adniitted that the petitioner remained out ofwork for period from 31 Julv, 2006 to 03.06.2007. The State Govemment, exercising its power under provisions ofRule 36 ofthe MP/CG Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short '-the Rules, 1977), granted extraordinary leave. Sub-rule (4) ofRule 36 ofthe Ruies, 1977 clearly provides that a govemment servant on extraordinary leave is not entitled to any salary. Thus, the order impugned herein this petition isjust and proper and warrants no interference. In view of the foregoing. the petition is havine no merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4rr'-it