a» BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH l AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P.(S) No. 3 2.1m OF 201i Harish Chaindra Shukt'e1,Kaged years, S/ogsmi Mohan La1 Shuktel, Pa‘chripara Durg C.G. PETTIONER RESPONDENTS Education Department D.K.S. ‘ Building, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer Durg— ‘DJSH’ - Dqwa (cg) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh {Through ' — The Secretary, WWWW mm W 3.2..9151/{1i 200 31mm (15mm) mmm ammm WIWW§§€IW mmm i 1 a; aimm SB on’hle Shri Manindra Mc‘han Shi'ivastava, J.! 24 6 2011 Shn Somkant Verma co nsel for the petmoner Shn N Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State Learned counsel for th petltloner subm1ts that Because of delayed absorption, salary of petitioner in respect of the period ‘ E0111 8 6 1998 to 16 2 1999 h s not been paid for none of the fault 1dent1cally s1tuated co employee of the same mst1tut10n ra1s1ng thls very gnevance had flied a wnt petmon and 111s pet1t10n of the peuuoner He submlts been allowed v1de order dated 15 7 2010 (Annexure P-3) p sed m the case of S.L. Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (now C.G.) 85 a other 1W.P. (S) No.3103/05]. Learned counsel for the petitioner its that case of the petitioner is identical to the case of S.L. Y av (supra). The claim of the petitio r does not appear to be h‘ivolous and therefore the respondents under an obligation to consider V petitioner’s representation. ' Accordingly, responde t No.2/District Education Ofhcer, Raipur is directed to consider etitioner’s claim after due verification ' of facts and if it is found that he petitioner is also similarly situated as S.L. Yadav and covered by the order dated 15.7.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No.3103/05, the s lary in respect of the period from 8.6.1998 to 16.2.1999 Shall b paid to him. ,With the aforesaid dire on, the petition is finally disposed of. e t s s m e c