@ l^ VTTR .1 j.JE.J:^' iOURT OF JUDiCATUSE'81 AT BILASCT prriTios NO, 3^/2^j i2> UMDER KKflCtE 22<5 QP THE CQNSTI'nmoiT OF MDIA PETmOKER: Pcdc(iS[?z^g3^ €/. w;' ^t. <» ^f/ j^w yf^ .-.Yogsadra P.1umar s/o" Late K.P. Poddar; ,- aged '52 yea-s, oocupation Teaoher, Asaastant Tsaclier, Maliaraaa Prstap Erafemik Shala!i aflat \.' // .y.^ // :-'<i3'" ^.-.•"y ^ ^- State of Cfaliattisgara, through / Departsneat of Schol i A»» Bhawaa Raipur (ChhattisgarN i.K.y. ; (R» 52S"°' i - r,;A a-ict Ediicatioi.i Officer, Raipiu', Disbict -w sur , rfC.G.1 u' "~\ ^.^ l^ 'Pur}?ose Hi^iea Raipur(C.G.) o^^iyoA ^ K v^ XI-HC-22 ^^ '<inMii, 9'ul^'is, Ssiwi'yy sn^r^i h-u'h SD^! sn^i^ <ifia ^ ^^yv- 2C. _.^.:.^...Ki.s..:3.11^^^ *t|l<* ' /8t 200 an^r ^giwnfer Patel 05/05/200d Shri Maaoj Paraajpe, Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Thc petitioner has prejl 226/227 ofthe Constitution The main gnevance of paid salaty siace last niore thc State AduuaistTativc The case of the Assistant Teacher in District Raipur (Chhatdsg passed by the respondent Prattuaik Shala Mafhpuren Against this order, the M.P. State Admiiustrative registered as O.A. No.' Tribiinal passed an iuteiim that order petitioncr is stiB Shala, Ralpur District Ralpu^ salary siace July, 2001, fhcrej Contem.pt Petition before fhe directed to be issued to stEU pcnding. But cven thciit petitioner. No retura has bee^ c<|>unsel fUan Tribitnal, petilpone Maharta.a >gha|rh) nUo. petiqoner .996/2(^01 oWer wO: <*l-4id41i! TTFRTt "^ feT^ •(.f^ $l< ^sif^an^r for the petitioner. Lawycr for thc State/respondents. |Ferred fhis writ petition imdcr Article dif India. [the petitioner is that he is not beins 18 aionths inspite of the order of i(nal, Raipiu- Bcnch, ilponer is that he is working as aa Pratap F'ra.fhmik Shala, Raipiir, Vide oider dated 17 f 07/2001 >.2 the petitioner was transferred to tinder thc Yuktiyuktakaran Scheiuc. filed aa appficatton before the TTribiinal, Raipur Bench wliich was and the said State Adxnuustrative on 02/11/2001 and by virtue of ^rking at Maharana Pratrap Prathmik Petitfoner is not bcing paul liis fore, the petitioner was forced to fik a ITribuaal on which the notices were aad that Coateaipt Petition is n^ fhc salaiy is not bcing paid to fhe ffled on behalfofthe respondents. respo|ndents dif -?*^1^ 3I]^T-^ h-U^i 3^1 5h^\if> 'Ml?fl \^'t:":t-^^- ]-!' N.!l' Wc '^^- -s^ •^ww^, aTilwis, feroy s7 *ll*«Mia»iich siiSifKWiw^feg ^ "2.- ^Wfd^ tlilidi"4'fyA tfat<(K '^i' dlpttl S^W Counsel for fhe petition^' subiiiits that ia. the cucilTnstances, the petitioner inay be aBo^ed to inake a lepresentetion to respondent no. 1 and hc be 4irected to dccidc fhe same to which learaed couasel for the State/ijespondents has no objectfoa. Having heard learaed <j regard to fhe facts aad circuxBJstaaces of the case, fhe petitioncr is allowed to raake a detafled rep|«sentationraising all his grievances to rcspoiidcnt no. 1 within a ^ tum respondcnt no. 1 shaU period of thirty days fix>m fhe| considering atl fhe grievaac^ objective maiuier by passing e law. ounsel for the parties aad havmg sriod of ten days fioin today aad iu decide the rcprescntation within a date of receipt of the representation :s raised by fhe petitioner in an reasoned order ia accordance wifh Wifh the aforesaid obs^vations aad directions tbe petition staads disposed of. J. 102/2003 aud I.A.Nos.458/2003 aad 737/2004 also stand disp|>sed of. Certificd copy as pcr RKI^S. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge