DMslon‘ Bench COURT FEE$ EXEMPTED BY NOTiFiCATION NoggeO/D-gmlxm- Faun m SCHEDULE B/C.G./os 1 & 11 OF TH€00URT As aPECl FEES wr 1370. $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH Eb WRIT APPEAL Ng ‘ OF 2011 APPELLANTS : / ’l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the (RESPONDENTS) Secretary, Depar’tment of Panchayat & Rural Development, Ministry, D.KVS‘ Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Kaw. m- :5 2. The Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. / Surguja (C.G.), Re». we. Q /3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District. Surguja (CG) /& The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS Nikeeh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri B.Lr Sahu, 28 years, R/o Near Kedarpur SchooL District Surguja (C.G.) Ku. Dropadi Sahu, D/o Govind Ram Sahu, aged about 23 years, R/o Vitlage Chalta, Barpara, Post Sur, Sitapur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (G‘rG.) Neetu Singh, W/o Avdhesh Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Nagar Panchayat, Sitapur, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) ,4. Krishiial, S/o Balak Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Bhusu, Tahsit Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (PETITIONERS) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 I Being aggrieved by the order dated 1305:2011 ’assed m vvP(S)‘No, 2665/2011 a Nikesh Kumar. Sahu p V‘ / (Writ Appeai under Section 2 ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present :— Shri M.P.Sr Bhatia, Dy. Govt, Advocate with Shri Ajit Singh, Panei Lawyer for the State/appellants. Shri Rahul Mishra, AdVQcate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 15‘ day of August, 201 1) “m 1. This intra-Court appeai arises from the order dated 13—5-2011 (Annexure -— A/1) passed in W.P. (S) No.25383 of 2011 (Nikesh Kumar Sahu & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others) whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter directed the Cottector, Sarguja, to verify if the writ petitioners were on employment and the work was taken by the authorities, they must be paid salary for the work performed by them. w 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/appellants submits that the appointment on the post of Shiksha‘ Karmi was obtained by the writ petitioners on furnishing forged documents,\thus, even if the writ petitioners have worked on appointment, they are not entitled to any payment for the same. 3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners were engaged in work and the authorities have been taking work without y making any payment, as there is no dispute with regard to non-payment of salary since August, 2008. The respondent authorities .are indulging in"‘the age old practice of ‘begar’, which HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. WRIT APPEAL NO.362 OF 2011 APPELLANTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (RESPONDENTS) Versus RESPONDENTS Nikesh Kumar Sahu & Others PETITIONERS amounts to criminal offence and punishable under the provisions of Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Aboiition) Act, 1976, Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the direction passed by the learned Single Judge to the Collector, Sarguja, to find out asto whether the writ petitioners have worked and if the work was taken by the authorities, they must be paid salary for the work performed by them. As an upshot, the writ appeal is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sdl— 3 Radhe Shyam Sharma ' s‘c‘iL ’7 ,?_.__.._.i’ i J. {3 ‘ i ‘i SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Gowri Judge L‘s-Law