vmv^- sp&'" 4^ t; ^ ^J_ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS) NQ.c35o(-b /2011 PETITIONER M.K. Thakre S/0 Late Kesheo Thakre aged about 65 years R/0 HIG 2/6 Borsi Coloney Durg (C.G) RESPONDENT The State of Chhatisgarh, Through:The Secretary, Department of Finance, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA J-HC-22 3^r^r fqrli<^ 3Tlt?T ^RF^^riin ) ^~^T v^tl<41d<4, ^Tll^^Ko, [^<ni^H,< ^n^r "CFT^ ^^jA.i:..e..:.^i.27£661'< ,^^...^^..........^.x..............^ -200 •f^sr' WHc^TT^^I^b SIT^T •^n^n:-Hitn 18B s Hon>ble Shri Mimtndral Mohan Shirivastava, J.l 10.5.2011 Shri Manish Upadhyay; Shri Y.S. Thakur, State/respondent, on advanc|s copy. Heard on admission. The grievance of the (Annexiire P-6). Later on, fti' of pendency of enquiry, the c^l<Ll(<yl4l'1 'RW^f ^ 'feT^t <Fai<^K ^ 3?rf^PT 3TT^T counsel for the petitioner. Dy. Advocate General for the petitioner, as setout in fhe writ petition, is fhat on account <j>f pendency of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitionjer vide show-cause notice dated 3rd May, 2000, petitioner was d^ued grant of higher pay-scale which was granted to other employ|ees, includmg juniors, in fhe month of November, 2000. The petjitioner retired w.e.f 31st May, 2001 during pendency of fhe enq^iiry. On a representation preferresd, tlie same was rejected vi^e order dated 12th March, 2003 enquiry was finally concluded and vide order dated 4tfa June, ^005 (Armexure P-7), the petitioner was exonerated ofthe chai^ejs and fhe enquiry was closed. As tihie grant of tdgher pay-scale wa^ denied to fhe petitionca* on account petitioner preferred representations dated 4.10.2005 8s 24.54006 (Annexure P-8 coU.), dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure P-9) ahd dated 16.5.2008 (Aimexure P-10). i Leamed counsel for flfie petitioner submits that once ftie petitioner is exonerated of the chares tn tfae enqudry, he is \ [^ I-HC-22 3TT^T°^I f<rli<=h 3Tlt?T 5t>^i(^ -yf^^ ~3^ ^l^ld<4, ^Tli-M^Ko, f^^K-l^< 3^T^T ^^ ^I^<?1S 5b^ich*'"**"***+*****'"*'***< ** ** W^ 20° •1^^8T- ^3T[^i'^rr^n:'^ftn rL^ pen^ing entitled to all those benefits of pendency of enquiry. The submission of appears to be reasonabl4 exonerated of the charges,) bound to consider fhe claiu^ pay-scale for which he woi}Lld departmiental enqutry petitioner has made series <|>1 failed to evoke any response. I I view of fhe above fat^ that fhe respondent/State by the petitioner and take a| exoneration vlde order retired way back in the yeaj' representation of the respondent/State expeditiottely monfhs from the date of recel ^hich were denied to him on account of. 4)114(d41'1 ^l4-l<y??'^ Fs^l iPn^K i7 3:rf^Tq 3?rT^T l^amed counsel for the petitioncr Once the petitioner has been respondent- authorities are duty of fhe petitioner regarding gprant of have been entided, but for ftie against him. I fmd that (he <|>f representations, wMch have been and cireumstances, I hereby direct consider fhe representation made decision thereon in the light of his d 4.6.2005. As ftie petitioner has 2001, this Court also directs fhat shoiild be decided by the and wifhin an outer Itmit of 4 ipt ofcopy offhis oixier. sliedl pettlioner With the aforesaid dire<j:tions, fhe petition is fmaUy disposed Prayeea Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [m ;h-