C- c (33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. N0. ~?^^ /2006 PETITIONER xy R.S.Shukla,S/o Shri Bindeshwari Prasad ShuKla, ^•''rc-y ..• aged about 65 years, ^^..'•^.••' .••" + /*h \ * .^'.••''l'dttT ..•''"'' ,.<-P^V \../' ^<^y ^\<3. <^; %^' A-';--1 Retired Lecturer, Govemment Higher Secondary School, (Tribal Welfare Department), Tokapal, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^3, State of Chhattistarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Developinent Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Conimissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule CasteDevelopment, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.). The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jagdalpiir, District - Bastar, (C.G.) The Principal, Goveminent Higher Secondary School, (Tribal Welfare Department), Tokapal, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.C.). •:'^: ^^?^'-^'!^ (Ir ^S. The Accoi-mtant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.). / •¥- 6. The Senior Account Officer, Office 6f Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.). / • WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITTJTION OF INDIA ^ ^ i XI-HC-78 3n^TqiTR-)14i ;cR(T SIT^T stiliti l< •^ c Soma '•db ^ flwc'rraiw^i 3^'qrai?PT, yTftyis, (slcliyy _ ^,' ^ 200^ 9n^?r ^ia<»> (y!^<st<itT) ?%rwBf^T3fi^r 3-S-2006 Mr. Subhash Yadav, couns^l Miss Deepali Pandey, Pan^t ^lforthepetitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to4. Olfice Mr. S.K. Beriwal, Central Heard. Main grievance of the pe< 226/227 of the ConsUtution of Indli 2003, he has not been paid the authority letter issued by the June, 2006, till 1-7-2006, the pe^ thereafter, vide Annexure R-2 further paidan amount of Rs.26,|S66 the Accountarrt General has infor<ned to the petitioner have already amount is due in the account of th^ In view of this, ttie am^ Accountant General has alrea^y petitioner. If the pet'rtioner is still appropriate case before the civil The pefition stands G(»vt.Counsel for respondents No.5 to 6. be^n wifepft^ WRrfffte^t rf^Rerc ^aiRtiTsn^T (itioner <n this writ peUfion under Articte |ia is Uiat after his retirement in the year (3PF amount. As per Annexure R-1, fce of the Accountant General on 20tt! (itioner has been paid Rs.3,41.961/- and 3-7-2006, the petitioner has been i,|S66/-. Vide Annexure R-3, the Office of the Principal ttiat afl the amount due auUionzed for payment and no further th^ petitioner. »unt as entered in the recoKi of the been authorized and paid to the (laving any objection he is at liberty to file C|ourtfordisputed amount, ifany. dispos^d of accordingty. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge P.T.O. 1