-^.t c^ ra^z. IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (Sl No.^ Stofi!©8Bteh /2011 PETITIONER ^ ) 1 RESPONDENTS ^t^ ^" /y/ .^'y/" ^'^ ...•••" ^y ^ :: Devendra Singh Bais, Son of late Gokul Singh Bais, aged about 71 years (Retired Superintendent), R/o. Plot No. 102, Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba (C.G,): VERSUS :1) State of Chhattisgarh, Throuhgh : Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan & Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Municipal Corporation, Korba, Through : It's Corainissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 _3?^T^T f<4Jcb 'ry^TT 3T[^T 5h+4ict> HWW{ (bHlcb "y^r ^i^icn^, ^ti1^4i<o, [®i<ni<r{^< ^_...VO^)^'.^.±llL ^....—.........-..,-.......7....^.'.;...'..../..^^QQ 3TI^?T 1C^Rr (ll°lf'l<sl<^) ^<HW^f^T3^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra IViohaln Shnvastava. J 20-06-2011 Smt. Hamida Siddique and cbi<<I<yi<fl<i 'f^i^i ^ f^T<Et <n»i^i< '^3TRW3qT^?T Ihri M.B. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panei L^wyer for the State/respondent No.1 on advance copy. The grievance of the petitio|ier, as ventilated through this petition is that even though, the departmentai jenquiry initiated against the petitioner was closed and the petitioner has been exonerated vide order dated 20/08/2010 (Annexure P/1), the salary, in r^spect of the period, during which the petitioner remained under suspensi<)n, has not been paid. Learned counsei for the p^titioner draws attention of this Court to memo of the Corporation, dat^d 5/1/2011 (Annexure P/6), wherein instructions has been sought from fie State Govemment as to the manner in which the period of suspension sjiouid be dealt with because the enquiry [regard to the treatment to be given to the officer has not stated anything with| period ofsuspension. It appears that the matter| is pending at the ievei of the State Goyernment. The petLtionerisa r^tired employee. Once the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges, tl|ie period of suspension is required to be regularised and petitioner's ciaim fo(- salary has to be deait with in accordance with iaw and the amount which is (due and payabie needs to be paid. This however, has not been done even tpiough the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges and the enquiry h^s been closed vide State Government's order dated 20/08/2010 (Annexure| P/1). Therefore, the State Government should pass necessary orders wit^ regard to reguiarisation of the period of .^^a&^-. ^ s f o XI-HC—78 *fl*(CrlT (t»*1ich ^ST T<11<41<'1^, ?$Tll-(-l<|(D, [a|<rtl-M^< l<5^ ^^. 3/l^/n '"^ 200 -sn^r Tf5W (liGiI^<s«^T) J '3TI^?T ^T f^TbF ^T8TT 3^?T 9^^licb Deepti t '^ ^<TWT^rf^T3^T -9- suspension, as aiso payment of ^ In case, no orders are passed Ij treatment of the period of suspel memo dated 5/1/2011 ,within ^ receipt of copy of this order, thej the period of suspension, if nd CM4iF<yi<fli iTm^if ^* f^crt iF^^K ^3tRW3TT^r petitioner. With the aforesaid observ^tions, the petition is finaliy disposed off. ^alary in respect of the period of suspension . ^y the State Government with regard to the hsion, as requested bythe Corporation vide period of three months from the date of entire salary of the petitioner, in respect of •t paid, shali be reieased in favour of the Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge