-^- ^' ^^ ftes%! F R. ^-^. ^l ^ IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, (Sl.NO. fc>^^^)F WRIT PETITION (S) N0. )F 2010 PETITIONER: ^^' RESPONDENTS: y Chandra Shekhar Chandraker S/o Shri Sukhnandan, aged about 35 years, R/o Prashad Gali,Kailasnagar City-Kawardha, Tahsil- Kawardha , District -Kabirdham ,(C.G.) VERSUS €' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Chief Secretary Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director Department of Technical Education, /• Bairan Bazar , Raipur (C.G.). 3. Principal Government Polytechnic College Kabirdham District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^. A.K.Jain Head of Department of Electronic, Government Polytechnic Woman College, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QFJPHE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA ^^i^' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) N0.6899 OF 2010 PETiTIONER ChandraShekharChandraker RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petitjon under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAD (Passed on this 25th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, iearned counsel appearing for the State submits that the period of contract under which the petltioner was appointed as Professor by order dated 26-2-2010 (Annexure - P/3) for a period of one year, which has come to an end on 25-2-2011, thus the petitloner cannot be reinstated back in semce and the petition has become infructuous. 3. So far as non-payment of saiary to the petitioner is concemed, since the order impugned was not passed by a competent authonty, the petitioner may be entitied to the benefits of saiary for the period the iliegai order remained in force. Accordingiy, the respondsnt authorities are directed to examine the case and pass orders, in accordance with the rules. 4. With the aforesaid obsen/ations, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving iiberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if his grievances, thereafter survive. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri J»dge