HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6396 012000 gETIllONEg : Rameshwar Prasad Kewaxth S/o Motichand Kewarth, age about 32 years, R/o vinage Kariatar, P.O. Purgaon, Block Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONQEN’gg : 1. State of Chhattisgaxh, through Secretary, Depamnem of Panchayat DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Dishict Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. The Collector, Distt. Raipur. 4. Chief Executive Omcer, Janpad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, \g Dim. Raipur. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present 2 ShriSandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Pane] Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23” of January, 2008) l. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Village Kan'yatar, Block Bilaigarh on 16.11.95 (Annexure P/l) and he was also appointed as a Secretary. '\ ) Thereatter the appoimment on the post of Secretary was cancelled, against \ which the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 3125/05 challenging the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secretary. In the petition, the petitioner prays the cancellation of his appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. 2. This Court aiter having heard both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner was never terminated h‘om the post of Panchayat karmi and ultimately held that the petitioner shall not be allowed to work as Panchayat Karmi is liable to be quashed and the same was quashed by order dated 07.08.2006. Thereafisr, the petitioner joined the service of Panchayat karmi but he was denied salary ofPanchayat karmi. 3. The matter was taken up before the Joint Direcmr. The Joint Directm, Panohayat & Social Welfare Dep'mment on 02.01.2007(Annexure P/7) directed the Chief Executive OEcer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Distj; Raipur to make payment of salary to ihe petitioner fodhwith. Despite the order, the payment ofsaiary has not been made to the petitioner, till date. 4 ‘ 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that once the Joint Director, Panchayat has passed the order to make payment ofthe salary to the petitioner, there is no reason to deny beueiit of salary to the petitioner on the post of Panchayat karmi. 5. Be that as it may, it is the responsibility of the Joint Director, Panchayat, who has passed the order directing the ChiefExecutive Oiiioer, Bilaigarh to make payment of salary, to ensure that the salary of the petitioner is paid regularly, including arrears of salary. 6. In view of the faetual submission as stated above, this petition is allowed. The Joint Director, Panchayat, ‘Raipur, and the Chief Executive omeer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh are directed to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner forthwith and the arrears of the same be paid within a period of three weeks form today. Sd/» Satish K. Agnihotri Judge