Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l n^ WRIT PETITION fS.1 N0.^3 ->/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS A^^ ^y.^kX ^^' o^"^. ^;^/ ' <<<>"'.x v' g^ri^kummar Shankar, aged about 40 years, S/o Duraiya , at present working as a Class III Shiksha karmi, R/o Village Post Rudraram Tehsil Bhopalpatnam District Bijapur (C.G.) VERSUS Director Mission Leader, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (C.G.) Collector and Mission Leader Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Misson Dantewada, DistrictSouth Baster, Dantewada (C.G.) Collector and Mission Leader Rajjev Gandhi Shiksha Misson, District Bijapur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhopalpatnam, Distt Bijapur (C.G.). The Block Education Officer, Bhopalpatnam, Distt Bijapur (C.G.). ET PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTI- TUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OR MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI.ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION7 sii^ii^iftm? 'nrsii^igiiiw 'S'sr -^nw^, fs-^vw, hw-»y. ^.Us^,'i1orl]W\ ^^............,....^.;......................^.......^ Sn^T XR^' (yiI^qyT) ^^nw ^isa aii^t Shri Vishnu Koshta, counss Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, No. 1 to 3 on advance copy. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel L advance copy. i-1eard. Limited cirievance as raised that though, the petitioner was Shiksha Mission, honorarium from 2006 has not been paid to him. (or the petitioner. Deppty' Advocate General for respondents Iwer for the State/respondent No.5 on wdrk Learned counsel for the petit| representation have been made tc| Panchayat, Bhopalpatnam with a] Gandhi Shiksha Mission, his grievarj In view of above, it is dir4 examine the case of the petitionet petitioner is entitled for payment released without further deiay. WiSh the aforesaid direction, qtt*ilci<iln ^wv^ ^ Is^ <P>I^,K i? sifiTff aii^r sva. 'y the petitioner through this petitjon is (ed as "Guruji" under Rajiv Gandhi month of September, 2001 to May\ the loner submitted that in spite ofseveral the Chief Executrve Officer, Janpad copy to the Mission Leader, Rajiv ice has not been redressed tiil date. cted that the respondent No.3 shail and in case, if it is found that the of honorarium, the same shouid be he petitlon isfinaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ittlU<<1^T^t| ^S;"1(<?><1, <l-al'lk<fit<—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.