^ C^P ^ \^- Beneh IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. ^f&35 OF 20402611 PETITIONER ^-"y^> ^".y .^' ^y..""'" ' ^"..^' RESPONDENTS Smt. Richa Mishra (Now Pandey), W/o. Shri Naveen Pandey, aged about 36 years, R/o. House of Sukhnandan Kachlame, Ward No. 3 Tribal Colony, Post Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS :1. ^State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^ i:^^f^ ^^..- <^ '^^- r^/" Y^ ^-•cz-^ ^^y 2.< Director, Panchayat Social Service, Directorate Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3/' Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^' 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Offlcer, Zila Panchayat, Doundi, District Durg (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA STI^I ^? ^i^ "^H 3?Y^T'^iT^7 Deeptj ^ i-IP^IT^HT^i ~5^[ ^iqi<n^, ^t^F?^, [^<ni<H^< ..^.;..?..Ll.€i.lL a^l 'q?^ (^?1^<^) '^^TW^^?3^? SB : Hon'ble Shri iVlanindra Moha^ 23-08-2011 Shri Somkant Verma, couns^l Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advj: and 2on advance copy. By this petition, the petitionef of non-payment of saiary in respect| remained absent. Learned counsel for the p^ Executive Officer, Janpad Pancha^at and the petitioner was reinstated absence, the saiary has not been pz duty period. Learned Deputy Advocate ajtemative remedy of filing appesji M.P./'C.G. Panchayat Service (Disc| Panchayat and Appeal Rules, 1995. i do not find any extraordinai] jurisdiction under Articie 226 of tr|e existence of aiternative and efficacl the order impugned. Accordingiy, this petition is peiitioner to prefer appeal before tht order dated 2/3/08 (Annexure P/13), '^i^te^i 'Ri^rf ^ 'fe^t TN^K ^T^t^P? 3?T^T Shrivastava. J. for the petitioner. >cate Generai for the State/respondents 1 has ventiiated her grievance on account of the period, during which the petitioner rfitioner submits that though the Chief considered the case of the petitioner in sen/ice, in respect of the period of |iid and the same has not been treated as jGeneral submits that there exists an before the Cojfector, as provided in Ipline and Appeal) Rutes 1999 read with }y reason, so as to invoke extra ordinary je Constitution of India, on the face of jous remedy of statutory appeai against pnaily disposed off giving iiberty to the ijs competent authority against impugned |in accordance with iaw. SA/'^ <,w^astava ^oW^ ^anYnA^ "^e k