IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (S! No. Q 7 L OF 2008 PETITIONERS 1 Prakash Chand Ratrey, Aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad, Occupation — Service (Terminated from the post of Chowkidar) Caste — Satnami, R/o Village Mandhaipur, Post Khisora, Tehsil Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh f 2.. Biharilal Kaiwart, Aged about 32 years, ‘S/o Shri Chhatram Kaiwart, Occupation —— Service, (Terminated from the post of Chowkidar), Caste -- Kewat (OBC), R/o Village and Post Bhainstara, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh ,l . 3. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Aged about 27 years, S/o Chamar Sai Yadav, Occupation — Service (Terminated from the post of Waterman) R/o Village and Post Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ,4. Ved Prakash Soni, Aged about 30 years S/o Shri Guharam Soni, Occupation — Service (Terminated from 7 the post of Cook) R/o Village and Post/ Nagoikhar, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh /5. Smt. Shakunti Bai, Aged about 36 years, D/o Shri Babu Charan Singh Kanwar, Occupation — Service (Terminated from the post of Cook) R/o Village Arda, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (/6. Chhabilal Dhritlahare Aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Biharilal Dhritlahare, Occupation — Service (Terminated from the post of Peon) Caste — Satnami, R/o Village and Post Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh /7. Laxminarayan Bhave, Aged'about 28 years, S/o Shri Panda, Occupation — Service, (Terminated from the post of Cook) Caste — Satnami, R/o Village and Post Siladehi, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS {Wrii Petition under Articie 226 9f the Const§tui$an 9f india) Singie Bench : H0n’%J§e Shri Satish K. Agnihotri; J. Govm WGH CGURT GF CHHATT‘3SSARH : 8§LASPUR RNRIT PETBTKDN {S3 NO. 8‘72 OF 2008 PETmONERS Prakash Ghana §atrey & Othws Versu$ State of Chhatiisgarh & Others Piesent :- 8hri Dhira§ Whankhade, counsei for the petii§oners Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for ihe State. {3RDER (ORAL) {Passed an éhis 15‘” day sf March, 2m G) 1} The case af the petitioners is that ifney were agnointed for a pei‘iod ef 89 days by orders {Annexure — Pl3 to PfH) in the respondent department. Thereaftea on compéetwn of 89 days the services of the petitianefs camete an emd. However, the pemioners were net paid ihe ealary fer ihe period they have worked. The petmonere have net raised any other ground in the argument. 2} Learned counsei for the Siaie submits that the fact wiih regard/ te non-payment ai saiary shaii be verified and if ihe petitioners have worked the same shaii be paid to them, in accordahce Wiih iaw, at the eariiesi within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3) ih View of foregoing, according io iearned counsei appearing for ihe eetitioners noihing survives in ihis peiiiion for adjudication. 4) Accordingiy. the writ petition is disposed of. 7 ' Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge g; r \ r