( ^m» IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BIIASPUR W.P. (S) No. o of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^w -^ /^ C^W '/M 'y-' ./y ^"^'..? <^/ />"r"s^ \/^.^—\ .^^/ '^'^-.^^^ •"^,^ •^.^w^^-'— - Gorelal Lahare, S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Lahare aged about 40 years, working as Peon, R/o Village - Maatmar, Post Office - Maatmar, Block Development- Pondi Uprora District-Korba (C.G.) VERSUS l". State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Department, Secretariat, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, District - Korba (C.G.) 3. -^The District Collector, Korba (C.G.) 4 . ^ the Block Development Education Officer, Pondi Uprora, District - Korba , (C.G.) 5. The Principal, Govt. High School, Ghareepakhna Block Development Pondi Uprora, District - Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 ^i^r ^T ^^?w cT'^T W^T ^'T[t^ ^ <TW<?TT ^it(TI^» ~g^x.]' --qp-))^^. '^'Tlt-H^Kc, fsj^i'Hy, ^^....^.l:.^s'.->...^^'€>...ll..•^ 200 3T?^?T TT^F (^f3i^T) IT^TWT ^f^T W^T SB : HON'BLE NR. WStXCE PRXTINKER DIWAKER 0^.09.2011 Shri Sameer Behar, Shri Y. S. Tliakur, lcounseS forthe petitloner. C^y. A.G. for the respondents. IS Learned counsel NI though the petjtioner respondent No,5 but hej since February/ 2008 till of filing thjs petition w<}3uld issued to respondent No.j matter and pass apprc^priate salary of the petitjoner. Learned State couhset objection if the Coilectjor passes appropriate ordejr. respondent No.2 has gi^en the petitioner is not wc(rking appointment order and p)er his salary. Be that as if may, of the parties, it wo^id respondent No.3 to enq^i ^T^Rt^ ^W^ff ^f f^Zf ^^R ^^T^^n^T r the petitjoner submits that stili working as Peon with has not been pald his salary Jate. He submits that purpose be served if direction is 3/ the Collector to enqusre the order for payment of submits that he has no enquires the matter and He however submits that him oral instructions that on the strength of any rhaps he Is not entitled to get ih view of the rivalry contention be appropriate to direct re into the matter and to take i^s^ .A:i^-^v, ^.^" XI-HC—78 31I^T ^T PN^ (Tm sn^i ^-RW -YT !, ^ifra^, r^^Tray WRdl^iff^ "^200 3Ti^T TT^T (^^i^tg^T) '^TO^?t;y •^pR'-^n "Sf f^r tf^r^K ^•3ffip=r3rr^r necessary steps. The pejtitioner would be at liberty to approach respondent fsio.3 by fiiing a detailed representation and in tuitn the same wouid be decided in accordance with law. It is made cjear th^ concerned would be t this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit^ of the case and the authority at liberty to decide the with iaw after due enquijj'e of the case as expeditiously representation of the p^titioner strtctly in accordance with iaw after as possibte. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge „,!.