^ 'G:-/ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUJR (C.G.) ofcision Bencft WRIT APPEAL N0m OF 2008 (D.B.) APPELLANT R?^^^ RESPONDNETS —f-^4t@^- ^*T -^ •< \ ^^' 4^.:-^ iy ^« The Chhattisgarh Khadi 85 Gram Udyog Board, Raipur (C.G.), Through: The Managing Director. VERSUS 1. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari S/o H. P. Tiwari, aged about 50 years, Presently posted and working as Manager, Gram Udyog, O/o the Zila Panchayat, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). «' ^" ^ l'&'i^ 2. (^ Chief Executive officer, Zila ^^ Panchayat Durg, Districf Durg (C.G.). P^3^C^^' ^ 3. / The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Khadi & Gram Udyog Board, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 "f"7^" HI&H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI ft L JHANWAR JJ: WRIT APPEAL N0.187 OF 2008 ^DDellant/ Petitioner Resoondents Vs The Chhattjsgarh Khadi A firram Udyog Board, ftaipur (C.©) Shailendra Kumar Tiwari and two others. APPEARANCE: Shri Praveen Tylsyan, CQynsel fpr the Appetlant. None for respondent no.l. Miss. Deepalj Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the respondents No.3. State/ ORAL JUb^MENT (Passed on lrt April, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. When the matter is taken up for hearjn9, none appears for the employee/ respondent no.l namely Shfliilendra KumQr Tiwari. 2. Counsel for the petjtjoner as also the State counsel are present. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It has been submitted that the entire amount pf arrears of salary has been paid to respondent no.l. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed by the learned single judg®dated 25th June 2008 in W.P(S) No.634/2008. ^-^ 5. ftespondent no.l was not paid salary, therefore, the learned single judge directed to pay the arrears of solary and has also jssued direction to pay intereston the arrears of salar^^^n^ received by respondent no.l. 6. Since the entire amount of arrears of salary has been paid and the respondent no.l has r^ceived tbe some, we are of the opinion that the interest part of the ^Qmen-t afJearwd single judge cannot be sustained. 7. Accordjngly, this writ appeal is disp^ecl pf mpdifying the judgment of the learned single judge IQ the ext^nt indicated above, Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Rao