c -^s^-^'SO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^'5 & /2011 PETITIONERS <•'<s- <^<'" ^>^y :...-'SVN^V- /':rl-:^.-" RESPONDENTS l.Poonam Mishra W/o Vidyanand Mishra, Aged-about 32 years, R/o- village 8s Post- uifront of tahsil office, Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja [C.G.] /•" 2. Pradeep Kumar Gupta S/o Sn Keswar Prasad Gupta, Aged-about 38 years, R/o Purani Basti, Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja [C.G.] VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretaiy- Panchayat and rural development department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Collector, Sarguja, Distt.- Sarguja [C.G.] 3. Zila Panchayat, Sarguja Through- Its Chief Execudve officer, Distt.- SaTguja [C.G.] 4. Janpad Panchayat Sitapur through- its Chief executive officer Distt.- Sarguja [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE "'T'^y CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORDER OR DIRECTIONS The above named petitioners most humbly and respectfully begs to subniit as under: U'ARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER- As nientioned above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS- As mentioned above. 4. PARTICULARS .OF THE ORDERfSl-This petition is not against any particular order but by virtue of fhe instant petition the G^. r^i-i]^- ti..:.i-,;.-': HiGH COURT QFCHnATTISGARH; gELAgPUS WRiT_P£;rmQN^S)HQ:J9SQE2011 TtT!if'"SE!M^S2Q E s t E^^i'Ti^F^i Poonam iViishra & Another •^^sr^i\tn^?ii.fTc:: '^-^EVLJC.';^ i O Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Othere iWrit Petition under Articte 226 cf the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'bSe Shri Satish K. ^nihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sanjay Patei, Advocate for the peiitioners. Shri N.N. Rov, Panei Lawyerforthe Stale. QgDERIQRAL] • (Passed on thls 10"' day of February, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appeai'ing ror the petitioners submsts ihat the pgiitioners were auiv aopoinied on the post of Shiksha Karmi Qrade-11! by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Steour, by o''der dated 28/11/2007 (Annexure P.'D and 21/11/20007 respectiveiy. Thereafter, the petit'onei's conanued on the oost. -earned counse! further submits that ths Detitioners have not been paid saiary for the work performed by the pstitioner No.1 since Aorii 2Q03 to December 2010 and by me petiiioner No.2 sincs is^i-i.'-si- •r?nri0 <~n A> E.'^! ze-t '^•f'^'s n ^©plSHIDSF^UU£{10 PtU^USl ^U'IU. Be that as it mav, without ooins into the merit of the csse asto whether the oetitioner continued on th®oost, the Co!!ector, Sarai.iia is directed 'to Sook into ths matter and snsurs ihat if the Deiitioners were on emDlovment and the .work was tasen by the authorities, they r"us? be psid saiary for the work performed by thsm. Needful ma'if be aone vyithin a oerioa ot' four vyeeKs trom tne ciate ot receipt of a copv of fhss ordsr. ^. ACGorciiHQiy, xn©vvfit pQXiaon is o^spos^a 01. a/- u Aiun/uowr, SatishK. Agaihotri Judge