PETITIONER RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HCN‘BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPuR (c.6.) W}. (s) Noqéf} of 2010 Raju Sahu Son of Shri Babulal Sahu, aged 23 years, working as WaTchman, R/o Village Mudapam, Districf Korba (6.6.) VERSUS S’ra’re of ChhaTTiSQarh, Through : The Secre‘rary, Scheduled T9ibe and Scheduled Cam Depam‘menh Secretariat D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CS) The Assis’ranf Commissioner, Tribal Development Dislric’r Korba (C.6.) The Dislricl' Collecl‘or, Korba (C.G.) The Block Development Educa‘rion ‘Officer, Pondi Uprora, Disfricf Korba (6.6.). »5. The Principal, Gov‘r. High School, Pipariya, Block Pondi Uprora, /- wDistricT Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ 9? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR WRIT PETI'I‘ION {S} N0. 7657 ofZOiO PETITIONER : Raju Sahu. RhbPONDEN ’W N ' “'1‘ 1 S . . VERSQSV State or Chhamsgmh ‘ .' & Others. . . WRIT PE’I‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTHUTION OE INDIA M $3: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotl‘i. J. , Present: Shri Sameer Behar. Advocats for the petjtjoaer. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Siate/respondetits. ORDER (ORAL (Passad on 26 day of Apri}, 2011) 1. By this petition, ihe petitioner seeks a éiiection to the 1'espondent3 to pay the saiary oftéae peii‘lioner for the period from 01.01.2009, iii} date with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The facts: in nutshell; as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman at Govemment High school, Pipariya, Block Pondi Uproda, District Korba, on 19022007 (Aimexure P/l) on contingency basis. The petitioner joined his duties on 25.02.2007 (Annexure f2) at the office of Block Edueation Onicer, Podi Uproda. Thereafter, the petitioner V was relieved to join his duties at High School, Pipariya on 04,07.200?( (Xihié‘ktire PB) and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his joining at Govemnent High School, Pipariya on 06.07.2007 (Annemre P/4). Atter his joinihg, the pétitiorter was paio salary from 19.02.2007 till 31.12.2008, but thereatter he was riot paid his salary from 01.01 .2009, till date. 3. Shri Behar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid his salary for the last 26 \X \\ months and the respondent authorities have been taking work from \ t 2 his continuously. In an identical case, this Court, Vide order dated 04.03.2011, passed in W.P.(S) No. 278/2011, had directed the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, to file an ailidavit explaining the entire affairs, and timber to explain asto why the petitioner therein was not being paid his salary and what action was taken against the officer who indulged in the age old practice of ‘begar’ which amounts to criminal offence and punishable under the provisions of section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act: 1976. Shri Behar further submits that alter the aforesaid order, the petitioner therein was granted salaiy for the period he had worked. Thus, this matter may also be disposed ofin the same manner. 4. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that if the petitioner has not been paid salary for the period he had worked, needful shall be done at the earliest. 5. On 03.01.2011, notices were issued to the respondents and the learned Panel Lawyer accepted notice on behalf of the State/respondents. On his request, three weeks time was granted to file return. However, no response has been tiled till date. ./’ 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent authorities which is evident from the order dated 19.02.2007 and the petitioner joined services at High School, Pipariya, which is evident from the communication ofthe respondent No. 5 addressed to the respondent No. 4, dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P/5). The ’ \ \ .\ \ respondent No. 5, on 07.04.2010 requested the Assistant ‘ Commissioner, Korba, to allot the fund of Rs. 306900/— for making \ V1 taking work from the petitioner. Thus, the respondent authorities are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period he has worked and has not been paid his salary, forthwith. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is i ‘ allowed. No order asto costs. i sw- # ; . g1 ‘ tsmsh K. Agnihotri-r; r Judge 1 Amit