'aaiK •EfiEI IN THE HIGILCOURT QFLJUDICATURE AT^ILASPURJC.G.] ^^^•"^•^:•"-..^-: PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 53,3 / ^/2011 Chamar Singh Sidar S/o Shri Hanu Sidar, Aged-about 52 years, Head Master, Pre middle school, Padakidipa, Block- Baramkela, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^\^•' ^-y^y ^^y. /"".^;C->'^ ^'i .** ,».^71^' ^ .</'.. •.y -^" l.State of Chhattisgarh , ,, , Through- Secretary, Adim Jati Tafha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.'S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Coruraissioner, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Raipur [C.G.] ^3. Assistant Commissioner, Collectorate office (Adivasi Vikas Shakha) Raigarh [C.G.] 4. Jalandhar Prasad Chouhan, presently working as Head master, Pre middle school, Padakidipa, Block- Baramkela, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORJSSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS • ,-'v ...">, XI-HC—7S '3~Sf "'lHiM'M, »t1WI6, fs|iv1l'M^< ..^.<^i^.^S3\/'2^\ 3;H^?TTTa^ (' •'TRST'^ll^W asnsii^nTiira' -i[ ^RlRTCdfta 3'I^T *!<<!i't'ifi'< 'RTtRff'? fe3t 'rfSl^TC ^r arfgiT sn^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Iirivastaya, J. 29-09-2011 Shri Dhani Ram Patel, counsel f( Shri Bhaskar Payashi, P.L. for tl advance copy. Heard. Grievance of the petitioner in thi not been paid the salary, to which, he September, 2010, the salary of the pi though, the petitioner had sent informi he had joined the present place of poi ordered to be posted at the same plac< of the petitioner has not been paid, whf at the place of posting on the basis Government, and therefore, he is respondent no.4 would not effect this with effect from the date, he joined a( also draw attention of this Court to Commissioner, office of the Commissf Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigar nothing has been done on the represerj In view of memo dated 05/08/11 Commissioner enquired the rnatter petitioner. Therefore, the Respondent ijio.3 is djrected to take up the case of the petitioner and submit a report b< month from the date of receipt of a cc] r the petitioner. e State/respondents' no.1 to 3 on i^ petition is that the petitioner has i|s entitled. It is submitted that from i^titioner has not been paid, even jtion to the State Government that jting, but as respondent no. 4 was vide order dated 02/06/10, salary ^reas petitioner has joined his duty pf the order passed by the State ^ntitled for salary, as joining of josting and entitlement of pay was the present place of posting. He ^nemo dated 05/08/11 6f Deputy loner, addressed to the Assistant for taking necessary steps, but tation to pay salary. I, it appears that theoffice of the with regard to grievance of the fore the Commissioner within one )y of this order. Thereafter, within 1 w-r?;ir°i XI-HC—78 T ^^ "^i^K'i^, ®til'a'ii<c,fN^rray ^ sn^i'q^r (' y) ai^r^i1s;iN-: WT S^y, WtK Laxmi ?Si?W ^fpf 311^1 —2^ ^qfa'ift"'WRff-? fe^t • ^TsJRmaB^l one month from the daTe'bf receipt ofjreport of Assistant uommissioner, the Commissioner shall pass approririate order regarding payment of salary, which the petitioner is entitled u With the aforesaid direction, the ider the law. petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- \ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i