IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JEBALPUR (M.£.) w.p.uu.£o3% l 2000 } IshWari Rasad Sharma, aged 39 years, Shri Dhanu PraSad Shanna Personal Assistant of Mayor, Municipal Carporati an . Burg . Versus Petitiener Durg. gwdw 4w), 4 La Thw‘ The §uvelrm>t, 9n; gmwm ‘yglw‘b nMPuK . Resggdents / = we» ‘ 9 1. Municipal Corporation. Durg ) V7 Through - The Commissioner Municipal Corporaticn , Durg . 92. Mayor, Municipal Corpcration, oD f ’ g Petit;on under Article 226/227 ef the Canstitucion pf INDIA. j , J3 ‘iga man-w ...~m.%..2..03g. g. $1200 snéwW (W) Mmwmw WWW#WW ' $31§q3néw 06.07.2905 Mr; Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms, Sharmiia Singhai, learned counse! for respondents 1 & Mr. Akhil Agrawal, legrned Panel Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the foilowing reliefs, under Article 26 of the Constitution o dia: (i) That the respon ente be ordered to pay the monthly salary in pay sc ie of Rs.5000-8000i- as specified in order No.Estti0 77W9 dated 14.12.1998‘passed by Departmental Pr motion Committee and by Standing Committee vide esolution No.9 dated 03.01.1996 of t the post of Pers al Assistant to Mayor. (ii) lt be declared th t the lesser payment of pay is illegal and unconstitut l as the applicant is entitled for pay of the post in which he is discharging his duties, That the amount f difference may please be ordered to be paid with i erest @1896. (iii)(a) The petitioner m y be heid entitled for seniority, pay scate and arrea‘ s of the pay‘scale of the post of Personal Assist nt to Mayor since the date of “ discharging the d ies of the post consequent to order dated 1£.07.19 SP/R ” f In i a 8 . / m mqi$ ............. . ...................... 111200 mslm (W) mmmtéwi’cs wwwma V mmW1¥w WA "’»‘ ;{3§%91§3% fmlf$msnés1 6. The fact remains that the itioner has worked as Persona! Assistant frum 12.07.1988 till da e. The petitioner could not be deprived of salary of—the post of ersonal Assistant irrespective of - 'the fact whether he was eiigible r not. i am not going into the question of his qualification, as hs quaiitication is not an issue in the present petition. The fact of s working as Personal Assistant from 12.07.1988 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents also. 7. Learned counsel for the re pondents further submits that by order dated 13.06.1989, the petit ner was directed to refund the surplus payment on'vthe basis of s working as Personal Assistant because the petitioner was not el ible to work, but admittedly the petitioner was allowed to work. 8. .ln view of the foregoing, e petition is allowed and the respondents 1 & 2 are directed t make payment of salary of the petitioner as Personal Assistant from 12.07.1988 till date after Sarma SP/F5/2005K§p,ooo Qtot gait §€M@@ t i h / adjustment of payment of salary. any, of Personal Assistant has been made, within a period of 3 onths from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge