<9 @ t? tart?f/ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I WRIT PETITION NQ. g 2. Z1 I20Ll3 PETITIONER R.L. Choudhari ged abonf 45 s R10 Nagar Panchayat Khars1ya (CG) VERSUS i“n A I 1 Sta 3 0- Cnha .lSaalh .._0_"gh Sec}5mg , LnVlIOment and Iqagl'l ya. Niyojan, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur /,, (CG) M Dimmer, Dirscted Urban Planning & /» § Developmam, RDA. Building Raipur (C.G.) 9! ‘ C.M.O. Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22é7/JOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS f ANI) CERTmRARI. /n" - i J PARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONER: Ths details 9f the Petitiener are shown in the cause title. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS : The details of the respondents are shown in the cause title. Wm 2 WW (ma) WWW ammm WW Wm *aifmm [SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.} 17.6.2011 mmm Shri M. B. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the Sggxejrespondents No. 1 8s ’2. Shri Amit Shanna, coun el for respondent No3. Though learned counsel or respondents No’ 1 8a 2 prays for some more time to f11e retu : considering the reply med by respondent No.3 and the natu e of relief sought by the petitioner, . I am not inclined to grant furt er time to respondents No. 1 8r, 2. Heard. This petition has been f1 ed by the petitioner for payment of arrears in respect of the per‘ d from 12.4.1999 to 5.8.2000 as also for grant of revised pay‘s ale with revised annual income. The petitioner, while rking as Sub—Engineer in Nagar Panchayat Kharsia, was su 'ected to disciplinary action. Vide order dated 19.3.1998, he was suspended. ' That order was challenged by iiling a Writ P ’tion No. 1610/98 before‘the High Vide order dated 10.12.1999 was allowed. The order dated 9th (Annexure P-l), writ petition September, 2002 (Annexure 13-2} shows that pursuant to the Court of Madhya Prades o XI-HC—78 Wm W 200 mam (We) WWW ammm mmeifg‘am mmma ‘4, MWW Praveen order of the Court, the Deguty Collector informed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Kharsiyia mat in compliance of the order of the Court: tr‘le period of Suspension has been treated as duty period. The order paesed by the lilgh Court of Madhya Pradesh on 10.12. 1999 (Annexure P—lfélows that the Court had observed that Mun‘cipal Council may take cognizance of the matter and initiate dep ental enquiry Learned counsel for th petitioner fairly submits that me said inquiry is still pending. owever, looking to the iact that no order in that departmental inquiry has been passed so far, imposing any kind of penalty f withholding of increment etc. and also taking into consideratio the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 salary in respect of the period of suspension has already b en paid to the petitioner, the concerned Municipai Counc‘ shall extend to the petitioner, all the benefits of increment revised pay—scale, which shali however remain subject to he orders which may be passed ultimately in the departme The petition is accordi allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. inquiry. Sd—l \ Shrivastaval Manindra Moha“ Judge r I W d t n n y