^^^^^•ss^^s^ fS^S^^^^^^ •A- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.—3A'2=of2006. PETITIONER: Prasiddha Narayan Singh s/o Late Shri Vijai Bahadur Singh, resident of At and post North Jhagara Khand Colliery, Ulstrict Koria (C.G.). VER S U S tt-i T : 1 .Singhi Collieries through its Manager Area. liducation man/Chlet S.E.C.L. ;.G. 2. Chainnan Cum S.E.C.L. S( ManagineDirector m .*;• SlfS^"'"msa:S».. ./^•ri'^^ wss'^^'^. ^•^Ev-1^3^-^ f 3. Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Jhagara Khand Colliery, Distriet Koria, (C.G.)497448 4. Chief Personnel ManagerS.E.C.L. Jtiagara KJiand CoUiery Uistnct Koria (C.G.) 497448 5. Principal Higher Secondary,School North Jhagra Khand Colliery District Koria (C.G.)497446 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF DSIDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER ••SS&SKS iXI-HC-^; :;..%!';Sj8KMS;*aa»Ws 3°3-<ll<<lcl«)('(yni'(flla, ^I^?T M.^^.!^.... t|11<?tt g)t,|^ - -:'----'^ ^gg •^f^f••••-•••••-••-•-•:•• sn^Tqir R;-fi5h ail^I sfiro ^lffg 3Dt^ ^RITWHftg 23-1-2006 Shri R.K. Jaiswal, counsei for t Application for urgent hearing Meara. This petition under Articie 2; India has been nled by the petitionei nature of mandamus, certiorari, proh ord6r or direction. On perusal of the record, it a| • earlier fiied a writ petition bearing W[ dismissed by this Court vide order aii tne parties. The relevant portior below: "Leamed counsel fbr the pefftionsr was not gjysn any ' 'ork^d his retirement, as such he November, 2004. Learned since the peWoner had work^ he is entid'ed o his saiary o/f date. Learned counsel for fffi the peWonerhas beenmakir^ oroce record. Mr- Koshy, learnedcounsel submits fhatffise peWonerrsti^ 2004 on attaining the ^e o/| and ffiiere is no guesSon wif?rat;i "WRif •?•feiS-d^re '^siPgii 3?A?r w'! • :|e petitioner. \f ailowed. ;|6/227 of the Constitution or for issuance or a writ in the tbition and other suitable writ, >pears that the petitioner had I.P, No.1470^2005, which was cjated 8/11/2005, after hearing cf the said order is quoted [petiSoner submits that Vie l^ofjc&/int!maffc'n wifh rsgard to t^ontinued in the service afiw \counsel further submits ihat '^d aHerNovember, 2004 a!so, the post of Head Masfer aii ' petitioner also subnvts ttiat his sjgnahii^ reguiariy jn thc afipearing for respondents 2 to 4 hed"? ff?s month of NQve'nber, superannuaSon t.e. 62 years of c<jntimaSon ofhis service as no [^^fa^ 'f^ XI-HC-22 SI^W [<;•<[<* 3D^?r spiwa^r T£[•<ii<iici<i, »Ti1w<re,feirey S^J XR^ workwas taken fmm the pet submits ffiiat the petitioner itioner. Leamed counset further ^sed to go m ffi>e mQmmg and used to ieave the schooi imrri^diatety wit'nout performing any work, as such ttw peiiffoner supefsnnLiaSon. The sub.'ni pefftioner sat fhe pefitione. Nwember, 2004 has bt ^ not entitied to any satary after tsfo." of teamed counssl forths had been working eveo after fpn strongly denied bv »je respondents. The petjtion^ has not shown any proof to estabiw that me fesponden petitioner naa aeen signi^ fequirement and no work ws^ November,2004. Shri S.K. Dadsena, leamedl adopts the submissions m^ counsel appearing for respol^ ffw records, itis admstted th, service as Head Waster petlvoner couid not establis^ .Wm atter November, 2004. entitled to any salary afteii ^nfepfri •wwn •? fezt •(RrRR i? sifSdT su^r s hsd taken any work from him. Lsarned counse! for ffiss rss^pndsnts iurther sub'n'ts that ff's »g on his awn without any s taken from the petitioner after counsei for resporxlent no.5, fe by Shti P.S. Koshy, leamed 'dents no.2 to4. Havjng heanl tearned coun^el for the parVes and pemsed t the peistioner retired from the respondent no.5-Schooi on attaining the age of supss^nnuatjon i.e. 62 ysars. The that any work was taken from [<xording!y, the petstiww is not fhe retirement as he has not worked in the school excet>S making his signatures in the office fecwd on !ws 6wn. in view ofthe foregoing, th^ peSGon is dismissed. No order astocosts." Afl6r the dismissai of tM petitioner preferred a review pel which was atso dismissed by thi^ dated 3/1/2006. js aforesaid wrii petition, the [ition i.e. M.C.C. No.263/2005, Court as withdrawn vide order [^^fe^. r" _^-- wd ^.^^srs?^ XI-HC-22 •3^-t|l*)lA'll, yTlt'Hil<o, Tsicii'yy. 3n??r iR'g? JV ^^l^t HI*1P(T th*<l<»> ^ 200 I^C^ST' OT^r^r Gw* sv^s ^^[W ^d «(ii<tt<-l''i1-f;MI*l<'fl'?fscS <la|tal< ^? 3Tf;3Hsn^r b H./- in view of the fact that the same Telief has already been dis giying a categorical finding that me any sai.ary after the retirement as school except making his signatures own and thereafter a review e|ariier petition seeking the distnissed by this Court by tsetitioner is nof entiSled to ihe has not worked in the aflp in the office recora on nis lication has also bsen aismissed as witharawn, mis sec< same question is not maintainabie. Accprdingly, the instant petil dismissed with costs.- Consequentiy, M.W.P. N4 disposed of, >nd petition agitating the on is liable to be and is ,278/2006 also stands Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ['qt^^Rrt