^ "y i ^^-^/ '•-"' XI-HC—78 jb°) ^ .^ -g-5; •swt^cs, 'vs^ww, 'fa^rray snt?} ^T 'R;"^w 'i'qi sne?! W5R; gn^T-q^^C^gf^t?) T?giw ^fet 3'R^ •* • PBTITIONER Riani Dwas Yadav, R/o JanjgiT-F Versds Yadav, S/o Late Shri Pauch Ram jaged about 64 years, Retired Clerk, Basti, Rautpara, Jaujgir Distnct- phampa (CG) Putani RESPOWDEMTS 1. State o 2. 3. 4. •'EPlfeTto TOTBff -S, fg^t •Ss^sr( ^ .MSiw ari^i 81 »o.631/^)09 ChhatUsgarh, throu^h the Secretary, Departa^ient of Pascbayat & Rural Develoijment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CQ) Directo^-, Directorate of Panchayat & Scx;ial Seivicf;^, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipui- (CG) Jfla P^achayat Jaajgir Chainpa through Chief [Executive Officcr, Jila Paachayat Janjgu'-jChaaipa Janjgir District-Janjgir Champa, C.G. Jaapadj Panchayat Baluda through Chicf Execiitijye Of&cer, Janpad Panchayat Balzida, District}- Janjgif Champa (CG) CIrief Bxecutive Officer, Jaapad Panchayat BaludaJ District - Jaiygir Champa (CG) WRIT PBTITIOM UNDBR ARTICLB 226 < THB coNsnTunoN OF IMDIA SB: HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA IMISHRA 1" 02-02-^)09 | Shri Satyendi-a Sahu, coUnsel for the petitioner. Sint. Smita Ghai, Paael Lawycr for fhe State. Heard. | By thte petition, the peStitioner is seckiag direction agaiast fhe respoudcnts to reledse his salaiy for the montfa of Februaiy, March & iiiiiir-n"—^"•r-~T~''T(m~ft'lioaMKrfvrui .4iS;fr*^tSS"^* Xl-HC—78 swi vi r<iw nqr sn^; ^ttja; F5ET •^|.4|(^4, 'giTfiWKe, 'ft-IMI'My wim^^a^ fz- vmWFv tirwff 4 fya 'rfsKsn ^siRwsii^i April, 2003, as fhe petittoncr l(as not been paid sateiy for fhe aforesaid monfhs even after a period ofapbout 6 yeara after his retiremeat. Leamed counsel for th^ petitioner subnats that tfae petitioner retired on 30th April 2003 fix>i4 the post of CJerk under the rcspondent No.5. However, he was not pa^i hls salaiy for the monfh of Februaiy, March & AprU 2003. He taas b^en regularfy submitting representations for releasing his salaiy for fhe ^bove period, bawever, the saine has not been considered and decided| by fhe respondent No.5. He further subinits that the petitioner is |not pressing ttus pctition at thra stage, however, he may be atlowed |to fflc fiesh represeatation before the respondent No.5 ibr redressal oif his grievances and fhe respondent No.5 be further directed to decide fh^ same within a specificd period. Ou the ofher hand, leslrned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in case the p^titioncr ffles fresh representation for redressal of his grievaaces befpre the respondent No.5, fhe saine shall be considered aud decided by ithe respondeut No.5 wifhin a pcriod of three weeks froni fhe date ofrafceipt ofrepresentation. In view of above subinis^ions of teamed counsel for fhe parties, the instant petition is dispose^ of with liberty to fhe petitioaer to file fresh represeulation before the respondent No.5 for redressal of tus above grievances, alongwith copy offhis order. On such representation being made, the respondent No.5 shall consider and decide thc saine within a period ofthree weeks fliom the date ofreceipt ofrepresentation. .? Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge iSi