INTHE HIGIiCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. t'W^ /2006 PETITIONER ...-:" ,.••• Smt. Basant Kavalia W/o Shri ..•••'^"^•' Thanwar Kavalia aged abaut 27 0^y'^S^\^' years> R/o - Village - Iragaon ^ '.."•'"'.'.-^y ..' .-v-%^-""- A8'-°' ..<••"' -•!°"' Block- Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manpur Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. Head Master, Vaikalpik (Unnayan) Primary School, Halajur, Manpur Distt. Rajnandgaon PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I-— XI-HC—78 siA'H ^a ft'iN; ^t an^n sn*ii=p ^ 'S^ •^WWi, »Ti1'M']<D, [sldKiy J— W»RW8i»n^» ^...W.:.&...!^^.J5^<i 200& sn^r'tra?;' (yffii't'i') THIIW^ferOT^l SB: Hon. IVir. Justice PritinMer Diwaker 30.06.2009; Sr Shri Anup Majumd^ Shri Yashwant Sii|igh Smitha Ghai PL for1 Shri Amrito Das colinset ahd Case ofthe petitioner is| as instructor in Panchayat Subsequently, after up-gradatij Ji under Sarva Shiksha Abhiy|an pay scale of contract teacll' petitioner was terminated 22.2.2006 and it is the said challenge in this petition. Contention of the counst filing ofthe presentpetition, th| vide order dated 29.6.2006 now the limited relief of the p^titioner saiary for the period 22.2.20061 <*w!i"t<fl-t tilMfi! 'if fe'Zt <(<<^U ^3JfOT3II^I counsel for the petitioner. Thakur Dy. AG and Smt. the respondents No. 1 and 3. for respondent No.2. jthat initiaily she was appointed Rural Welfare Department. J3n, she was appointed as Guru scheme and was given the fer Grade !!i. Thereafter, the service vide brder dated t^rmination order which is under frbm y for the petitioner is that after e petitioner has been reinstated by respondent No.2 and is in respect of grant of Ito 29.6.2006. p^ssed ^-'•''^TS^:'^raiS^^3fft^RV£lf'33T^--^^EVftCwzf^tw^^w^!**^--#tlS^^yS^-: ..^ ^ XI-HC—78 < 's^ -^ww^, »xil'M'i<e, R<di'y;i'(. T ^ si^'g'^i^fw E-.^s^ ofi^fl s»i*ii<*i ^o- wwwwww "WT. 200 sii^a Tpffi' (y^'i'?) TOiiw^ftnan^i -2-" 1iM^?ra1'i WERff Tf fs^ ^<$R ^?stfinOT$5i Counsel for the petition^r submits that the petitioner is a very low paid employee circumstances she is working that the respondents have gc|t sufficient fund under the said scheme and the saiary for the her by them. Lastly, he submiljs that the petitioner would make a suitabte representation to direction for deciding the sanj payment of salary for the ^ submission of the counsel fo) respondents, have no objectio^ Accordingly, the responj the representation, if any, rrjade period of three weeks from tf accordance with law. and under the compelling as Guru Ji. He further submits aforesaid period can be given to respondent No.2 and seeks a e sympatheticalty and to make forementioned period, To this • the petitioner, counsel for the 1. ilent No.2 is directed to decide by the petitioner within a ^e date of its receipt strictly in The petition is thus dispcjsed of in the afore-stated terms. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge