^ SWCLE BEWCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.S^Lfi1oF 2011 PEimONER ^^5 ^^ /-(^ hjs^y.. ,^-:^<^<y> ^y><^ \<^,,- -"' ^ESPONDENTS Dhaneshwar Soni S/o Maharang Orriya, aged about 48 years, Occupation Chowkidar at Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG), presently posted atlndustrial Area, Harinchapra, District Kawardha (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Industries, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2:^' ^> 3. ^ Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, through the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfully begs to submits as under: - Details ofthe petition:- ^' < HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) W.P.(S)No. 5644 of 2011 Petitipner Dhaneshwar Soni VERSUS Respondents 22,09,2011 State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, P.L forthe State/respondent No.1. Shri Kasif Shakeel who normally appears for Chhattisgarh State Industrial Deveiopment Corporation, present in the Court is directed to appearand assist the Court. Grievance of the petitioner is that on 28.10.1995, he was suspended on account of registration of a crimjnal case against him. However, in the said criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted and thereafte'r he was reinstated vide order dated 04.12.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been reinstated but the respondents No.2 & 3 have not decided his claim of salary for the period of his suspension. He further submits that the petitioner has approached respondents No.2 & 3 on several occasions but til! date, his claim has not been decided. 3. Shri K. Shakee! submits that let the petitioner make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 after supplying a copy to respondent No.3 and in turn, his representation would be decided in accordance with law if already not decided. 4. The present petition is disposed of with permission to the petitioner to file a fresh reDresentation to the resoondents No.2 & -^? ^ - ^& 3 withjn twoweeks from the date of receipt ofcopy ofthis order and in turn, respondents No.2 & 3 shall decide the same, if already not decided, as expeditiousjy as possible preferably within a period two mbnths from the date of receipt of copy ofthe said representation. 5. It is made ciear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on meritsofthe case and theauthority concerned would beat liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance wrth law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge %!: ^''-'? ~{ / . .^vif^^^^'^'^-^'f-'fSS1^^