\ /'" 1 •S- / ^ ^// .°»li i^'^ IN THB HIGB COOaT OF 3BDIG&TURE OF CHHATTISQMtH AT BILASPUR 8II'Fiiai;is> S3ra"r>1 ^ BS"Ci WRIT PgTITICN N0. ''•-5*^ 3 _/2006 ' ,^- M/J£^^^- ^i^rr^s. vtssisaiGsss. \^..^^". ^^-' ,.•••'C/..l[' ..-•"' ..•-^^^?-'"' ^^v'..-- ^''..-^^ \'-'" Brijlal Ye<3av s/oa= Shagaurain aged 33 (WiArty t.Mee) years. panctaayet KnEml (secretary) and resi!a6nt of (scaaa parosbayat) vMlage Sbadaca in tTanpaa pancbayat an8_ Tahsll B.llaigarh, D-tstrtet Raipur (C.G») r.'y- ^.--•' RESPOHDIBTS VStStiS 1 ^•' 4, The Cbtef Executive- o£ficer. tTanpa^ Panchayat, BU.aigarb DiAV- ^s.;\tv:>~V^:-<'-3 ^ ' Gcs» panehayat Bhadec'a, ta ttie TahsU. aad ffanpM! PaBChajyst BllaigaEb.Olstriet Rai»ur 3. SacpaBCh (Httare l&.Uttari Sahu) Gram panchayat Btaadora» Tahsal BitaAsaEh, Disfcrict Raipur State of chhatttegarto thEougb fche seceetary, Department o£ paachayat; anfi Rural Deveiognrnt Dau Kalyan Sta^* Bullcltog (gheshtEA G!hauK)» Ralptir '^5. The sub-oivisional o££ic«E. Bilaigarh Tahsll B.llai.garh, Distriefc Raipur ^6. Mahesliwar Das Valslmava* ratichayat Kannl.(secE'etary) Oeani fanchayat Tundri, Taihsil Bilal^arb, Oistriet Ralpui:* PETTTIOB HSR fSTICtS 226 AND 227 OF THE oNwtfa?"'**jlll»Lll in-t!B***m# CONSTmjTXpN QP ySDltk FOR ISSUE OF cm- CJXSl^CS, MAK23AMBS, WpiaiBOTIO(I_ETC,, (» ANf OTHSR APPRO^RTATB BRrT, B3RECTXG»t €» wusx. tsas^R.. l"i"'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1345 of2006 Petitioner : Brijlal Yadav Versus Respondents The Chief Executive Officer & others Sin^e Bench: HonTale Mr. Justice Satish K. Agaihotri. Sbri Janak Ram Verma, couiisel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawatia, Govenuneat Advocate for the respoadeats No. 4and5/State. ORAL ORDER (27* March, 2006) According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appoiated as Panchayat Karmi by order dated 29.1.1996 in the Gram Panchayat, Bhadora, Janpad Panchayat, Bila^arh, District Raipur. Vide order dated 27.12.2005 (Annexzu-e P/2), the petitioner was put iinder suspension by fhe respondent No. 3/ Surpanch, the Gram Panchayat, Bhadora in its meetmg dated 30.12.2005 resolved that the respondent No. 3 ie. Surpanch has no power to suspend the petitioner wifhozit foBowing due process oflaw. The resolution of the Gram Panchayat was approved, thereafter by the Gram Sabha on 28.1.2006 (Aimexurc P/4). Leamed couosel for the petitioner subinits fhat fhe petitioner has not been paid aay salaiy for the period he remained suspended, when the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha havc resolved that fhe suspension order was passed by the respondent No. 3 wifhoiit having competeuce. It was ftirther contended that the petitioner is entitled to salaiy for fhe period he remained outside the job on account offflegal orier passed by the concemed aufhority i.e. respondent No. 3. The petitioner has 'fettBW^SIgHiSSstetaWBSSBSfeBjl "^: .<'^ not made any application to the concemed auttionties for payment of his salaiy during fhis period. 5. The petition is disposed of reserving Uberty to fhe petitioner to make appropriate representation before the coinpeteat authority for payment of his salaiy, if aay. The competent authority, in fhe event, the representation is made, wfll decide the representation wifhin a period of thxee weeks fioin the date of receipt of fhe representation in accordance wifh law, on its own merit. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge y