5mm WW m @ iii THE EiéE CciiRT 3F JijmCATimE CEHATTEG§§E AT gxLASPuR w.P.No. ll; $3] 2005 Petitioner Rameshwar Das Vaishnav (Hsadmaster) Aged about 66 ysars, R/o P‘O Aram Shahi Dist : Bilaspur—(C.G.) Versus Rts espanden State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretaxy, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Dist : Raipur—(C G.) t Joint Director, Lok Shikshan Division, Bilaspur—(C.G.) District Educatien Officer, Bilaspur—(C.G.) State o M.P. Through Secretary Schooi Education Department, Valiabh Bhawan‘ Bhopal—(M . P.) Government Primary School, Through its Head Master, Barduli, Sub Area — Patharia, Bilaspur, Dist : Bilaspur—(C.G.) WRIT ?ETETION UNDER ARTICLE 226] 227 OF THE x;- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f XI—HC-22 4.4.2005 Shri Suresh Verma, counsel r the petitioner. Shri Akhi! Agarwal, P.L. fort e State. The main grievance of th 'petitioner in this writ petition is that respondents are not making paym nt of his saiary for the period 27.10.1984 to 5.4.1986, whereas during this eriod he had worked as Head Master in Government Barduli. The case of the petitioner is that he joined his duties as teacher in the year 1958 at Government Primary chool, Reda and worked on the said post tiii 1980. in the year 1980 when h was working as Head Master in the Govt. Primary School, Barduii he beca e mentally iii and remained as such till 1.7.1980 to 3.10.1983, therefore, he could not attend his duties. After recovering from the mental illne s and after obtaining fitness certificate (Annexure P-1) reported to respo ent No.3, who gave an oral order to the petitioner to join his duty. The petitioner also made representation to respondent No.3, who wrote a lett r to respondent No.2 to inform him as to whether the petitioner was workin or not. After that respondent No.2 gave permission to the petitioner and h again joined the services, worked on that post from 27.10.1984 to 5.4.1986 at Govt. School Barduli, but so far salary to the petitioner and after 5.4.1986 the rk. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the authority co cerned in the year 2005 (Annexure P-6) but same has not been answered. Learned counsel for the pe itioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make a detailed rep esentation raising all his grievances to respondent No.2 and respond nt No.2 be directed to decide the ”l for that period has not been pa i petitioner was not allowed to o o XI—HC—22 representation of the petitioner, objection. Having heard learned cm to which learned State Counsei has no nsei for the parties and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. the petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation raising al his grievances to respondent No.2 within ten days from today and in turn respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner thin another three months from the date of receipt of the representation after considering all the grievances raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. With the direction aforesai , the petition stands disposed of. In view of this order, M.W. . No.991/05 also stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules i l Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge (@W)