EF0000113212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT : BILASPUR Writ petition No .....} ....... ofzooo. Dr. Ashoke Shukla, 60 years, son of Petitioner shri Bhuwanlal Shukla, Principal, I é Durga Mahavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhaiiiégarh. VERSUS Durga Education society, through V President, Durga Mahavidyalaya, Campus, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through i ; Principai Secretary, Higher Education r Department, Raiour, Chhattisgarh. 3. Commissioner, Higher Education Respondents ; 1. Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 I CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ”y” Hon’ble Shri H.L. Dattu, cJ é. PETITIONER REsPONDENTs Durga Education society & Others Present : Shri P.K.C. Tiwaril Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashibhushan, counset for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate Genéral for the State/ respondents No.2 and 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22"“ Febmgry, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed H.L. Dattu, C.J. ln this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia, petitioner, who was working as a Principal in Durga Mahavidyayalya, Raipur, has called in question the correotnessor otherwise of the communication issued to him by the respondents on 30-10-2000. 2) The relief sought in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order AnnexureP/5 and further permit him to perform his duties till he attains the age of 62 years. /, 7/" f ( (f? K“ 3) During pendency of the petition, petitioner continued to wqrk as a Principal in the respondent Coilege and he retired from service only after attaining the age of 62 years. 4) Since the petitioner is now retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, the relief sought for by the petitioner would not survive for consideration of this Court. 5) Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled for the salary during the period he was prevented from discharging the duties as a Principal in the respondent College. 6) Per contra. learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner in this writ petition has not prayed for the aforesaid relief. 7)‘ ln our View, in view of the efflux of time, the relief sought for by the petitioner would not survive for consideration of this Court,’ therefore, the petition requires to be disposed of as having become infructuous. However. liberty requires to be granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities for payment of salary during the period he worked in the respondent Coliege. Accordingly, the following : ,a, Order (i) The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an V appropriate representation before the tirst respondent for payment of salary during the period he was prevented from discharging his functions as a Principal of the i ,,F\l i , institution. , (ii) If and when such a representation is made. the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass. appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. SM- ‘ Vijay Kumar Shrivastavei Judge /////’ ./ /» i t V w r-