Slngle Bench c A • \0<:3( IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.^^ ^ /2011 PETITIONER :: ^ Gopal Sharma, son of late Shri Rain Singh Sharma, aged about 59 years, Assistant Account Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). VERSUS ^ Y'< RESPONDENTS ^^ ^y^ ^^'^'" /.!} State of Cbhattisgarh, Throu^gh : Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan 8& Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^:2) Municipal Corporation, Korba, Through : It's Conunissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTN'UTION OF INDIA y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8<SARM AT BIiASPUR SB_:JION*BLB MR. JUSTICB PmTINKBR MWAKBR PBTITIONBR W.P.(S».2VO.5648/2011 Gopal Sharoia versus RB8PONDBNTS State of C.G. & Another Shri M,B.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner* Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, P.L. for the State/resp. No.l. Shri B.D.Guru whonormaUy appears for rcsp, No.2, present ia fhe Cozirt is asked to appear aad assist fhie Court, WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THB CONSTITUTIOlf OP INDIA ORDER (22.09.2011) Grievatice of the petittoawr m fhe preseM ^titten is that m ihe departinental enquiry ffaoiigh the petitioaier has been exonerated from all fhe charges but tiU date the respondents have not paid his salaiy for the period during which he was under suspension, Counsel for the petitioner subinits that fhe petitioiier has filed rcpresentations on 20.7.2011 & 8.09.2011 (Annexure P/8 aad P/9) but fhe said rcpresentations have not been decided. Coinisel for fhe respondente have ai^ued ttiat the petltiod^r has made reprcsentation recenfly and had rushed to fhe Court without giviag sufllcient time to fhe competent authority for consideriiig his represexitation aad ffaat he ought to have waited jfor sometime. Be that as it niay, it is expected fiiom fhe resp. No.2 to decide fhe pendiag representation of the petitioner if already not decided, as expeditiously as possible. Wifh fhe above obsenratfon fhe petitkm staods disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opiaioa on the xxierits offhe case and fhe aufhority conceraed would be at Uberty to decide the representation strictiy ia accordance witeh law. .sdl^ahet ^^s^