¥: il£Btft^ O ^ ) BEFORE THE HON-BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S^ Np. 1 5 38 / 2Qin PETITIONER t R.S. Rathore , S/o Late H.P. Rathore, Aged about 51 years, In charge S.D.0. (R.E.S), Janpad Panchayat Makdi, District Bastar, C.G. R/o D.N.K. Colony Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS \^£- ^^ ^i$sra" ^?<^y ^¥'v' ^•-" €' / ei,./' ^ ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) 2. Development Commissioner, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur, C.G. 3. Jila Panchayat Bastar, through Chief Executive Officer, Jagdatpur, District Bastar, C.G. ^A. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Kondagaon Division, Kondgaon District Bastar, C.G. ^. 5. Chief Executive Officer, JanpadPanchayat Darbha, District Bastar(C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . ,^"',w\ ^ ^ ^r^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH' AT BILASPUR WRIT PETm'ON (S) No. 1538 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS R.S.Rafhore. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. w' l**^a^. WR1T PETmON UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTn'UriON OF INDIA SB: Hon'fele Sim Satish K. Agiiihotri, J. Present: Sto Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. SIiri V.Y.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate G-cnera! with 81m N.N.Roy, Panel LawyeY fbr the State/respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDER('ORAL) (Passed on 08ffi day of April, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid travellmg allowance and his medical bills have also not been reimbursed, despite several representations made on 13.07.2009, 10.08.2009, 05.10.2009 and 04.11.2009 to tlie Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha. He prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider and decide his pendiiig representations, expeditiously. 2. It is surprising that asto why an employee flie Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha is not feeling any responsibility with regard to the giievance of the petitioner. If an employee has spent from his pocket and is legally entitled for reimbursement ofthe amount, tliere is no reason that he should be denied payment ofthe amount on account of laxity or lazmess ofthe superior officer. 3. Slm Sahu, leamed counsel appearmg fbr the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner does not want to press the prayer with regard to gi'aiit ofan'eai's of sixth pay scale in this petition. 4. In view ofthe above, the Collector, Bastar at Jagdalpur is directed to examine the grievance of the petitioner and consider and decide his representations pending befbre the Chief Executive Ofilcer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha, m accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, witliin a penod of six weeks trom the date ofreceipt of a copy oftliis order. Amit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge