g @a) v IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W. P. (SI No. 3947 of 2010 PETITIONERS :1. Tajuddin Khan, S/o Shri Mohd. Siddike Khan, aged about 28 years, Uraonpara, Sitapur, Block— Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2. Vijay Kumar Bakhla, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Raghuvar Ram Bakhla, R/o Uraonpara, Sitapur, Block- Sitapur, District— Surguja (C.G.) 3. Jitendra Kansari, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Uday Kansari, R/ o Mulajimpara, Sitapur, Block-Sitapur, L District-Surguja (C.G.) 4. Ajit Kumar Soni, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Antulal Soni, R/o Champakpara, Purani Basti, Sitapur, ' Block—Sitapur, District— Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Rajpur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Surguja, District— Surguja (C.G.) 3. Zila Panchayat Surguja, through xxx/4 Chief Executive Officer, Surguja, District—Surguja (C.G.) 4. Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, (1/, through the Chief“ Executive “x Officer, District-Surguja (C.G.) Chlef Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sltapur Distnct— Surguja C G ) " . Government Primary School, Kumansiya, Block— Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) through the Headmaster 7. Government Primary School, Sontarai, Block—Sitapur, District— Surguja (C.G.) through the Headmaster 8. Government Primary‘ School, Bharatpur, Block- Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) through the Headmaster WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE @@ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @9) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.3 to 5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18‘“ day of January, 201 1) Aru n WRIT PETITION (S) NO.3947 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Tajuddin Khan & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to pay the entire salary of the petitioners with 24% interest per annum. Learned counsel further submits that the payment could not be made for want of direction of this Court and in other similarly situated matter, the petitioners have been granted salary for their work. The petitioners should not have been deprived of their legal salary for the work admittedly they have done. Accordingly, the respondent authorities maybe directed to release the salary of the petitioners. 2. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 5 submits that the salary will be paid to the petitioners as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks. 3. ln view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage and the petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. //// Sdl— .</" "V SatishK _ Agnihmri Judge