Bta"—- ^^ a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS^No. 634 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shailehdra Kumar Tiwari, S/o H.P. Tiwari, aged about 50 years, presently posted and working as Manager, Gram Udyog, O/o the Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg(CG). YERSUS 1. State of Chiiattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofKhadi&Gram Udyog Board, DKS Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi & Grain. Udyog Board.Raipur (CG). 3. Chief Executive OfEcer, Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (CG): (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agmhotri. J.) Present : Shri Shashank Thakur, Adyocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Slate/respondent No. 1. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate forthe respoadent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25"' day ofjune, 2008) 1. W^ith the consentofthe parties, Ifae matter is taken up for faeanng finally. 2. The petitioner is a Managei', Gram Udyog, Office ofthe Zila Pancha^'at, Durg, District Durg (CG). The petitioner seeks a reliefto the extent that the respondents he directed to release the salar}' of the petitioner fi-om June, 07 onwaids with interest. 3. Shri Shashank Thaknr, leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working with sincerity and diligence on thejob regularly. The petitioner has been denied salary from June, 07 onwards. ^t. . ' .' .•..'•.. . ' .. • ' ' ' . . •• • • .• • The ChiefExecutive Officer, Ziia Panchayat, Durg, has sent a certificate indicating tliat thepetitioner was working contmuously from 16.08.07 to 10.11.2007 (Annexure P/4) wde letters dated 17.09.07, 19.10.07 and 22.11.07, and thereafter also. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to his legally due salaiy for the woi'k, he has performed. • 4. Shri P.K. Bhadiiri, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits tiiatthe fand re'quired for payment ofsalar)' to the employees has been given t6 the Sahu respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Khadi & Gram Udyog Board, P^ipur, aad the mistake has been committed on the part of the respondent No. 2 by not releasing the salar}' to the employees. 5. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, leamed counse! appearing forthe respondent No. 2, per contra, Submits that since the atteridance sheet was not sent in prescribed proforma (Annexnre R-2/9), tfae payment has not beeh released. 6. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prescnbed profonna is to be sent by the Cluef Executive Officer, for which, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Even ofherwise, so far as certificate with regard to work of the petitioner is coiicemed, the Chief Executive OfBcer, Durg, has sent letters tune to time ffldieating that the petitioner has been working regularly. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for tfae parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is well settled principle of law that'uo employee can be denied payment for his work on any techmcal groand that tlie report was not sent in prescribed profonna. 8. Be lliat as it may, it is well established tfaat tfae petitioner has worked contmuously as it is evident fromthe letters dated 17,09.07, 19.10.07 and 22.11.07 of Chief Executive Officer, Durg. Thepetitioner is accOrdingly eiititled to his salary from June, 07 till December, 2Q07 as prayed; Smce the payment has not been denied, the petitioner is entitled to some iriterest onthe amount as llie petitionerhas notreceived the money (salary) indue time. Accordingly, the petitioaer is entitled interest on the said amount from the datetiie amountbecame diie till it is paid to the petitioner, at the rate of six percent per annum. 9. With tiie above direction, the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. ^ft^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn ^- Judge