SINGLE BEMCH BEFORE THE HON^BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. lG.^^-Of2095. ^ RESPONDENTS PETITIONER :- M;urari Dutt Sharma, Son of Shyam Dutt Sharma, aged about 55 years, resident of At and P.0. Tapkara, District Jashpur (ChhattisgaFh). VE R SU S 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofTribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2. The Commissioner, Departmeiit of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawn, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), 4, Prmcipal, Govemment Higher Secondary Sehool, KLimkud, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE il^OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ ^yk'^ ^ST^ XI-HC-22 3TT^?r^)T f^TF^'3TT^T $b^ich^rf?cf L-. " ^. 3^T ^i^Kn^, ^Tn^^j^, Ic|diy^< 3T1^T q^^ 4-Il^dl ^bNT^,,..m^J.^ 2005^ ^ W^T^TT^K^cT xlary |fi 28-4-2005 Mr. H.8, Agmwal, Seniot Adyocate for the petitioner. Mr. BhQ^kar Pyasi/ Pan&l Heard both the counsel. Tne petitioner hc^ prefei of the Constitution of India. that he is not being paid sal 2003. Perusal of the record shl from Jashpur to Dhamtari vid^ and the record further shows 10-Z002. Thsreafter, the dat©d17-6-2003 and after r®}j4vi The petitioner appiied for ^nnexure P-6 the petitioner day^ kave, whereas, onJy 203 crsdjt, therefore, he was direcl|e< i©ave< Leamed Senior Counseil petitioner was discharging his di^h/ Advocate with Miss SongeetG Mishra, L^wyer for the Sta+^/r^spond^nts. jred thi5 writ petition under Article 226 P"he main grievance of the petitionen is ^|for the period from 19-10-2002 to @-7- ^i^t<n41Ti ^i^^T^:te^'<Ri^<iK ^3lf^T3TT^T )ws that the petitloner was transferred order dated 4-9-2002 (Annexure P-1) h& was r&jievsd from ths po<t on 18" ioner's transfer was conceiied vide order the petitionsr, he remained absent. for the said period, however. vide s informed that he has applied for 263 tys EL and 134 half pay Jeave were on his sd to move two appiications for the said th.at petitloner's ii4vSn9 iedve wcts 4v for the petitioner submits 1+iat the XI-HC-22 3:n^T^)T f^;ri^3:n^?T rf?cT ^-[W^T >oma ^I^CII ^NT^) 3^T ^J^Id^, ^Tn<H-Il<o, fc«rtl^^< 3ll^l M5<cn / 200 5~ f^re^ 3TT^T^RTT^K^f?cT -r^r- Whereas, the record sho^s aiready reiieved the petitioner o^ In view of the disputed r^iieved or not frorrs that plac^, he was working at Kunkuri, T^< pe+ltion. Since, this writ petiti^ can move civii Court. Jf he so wa.it Jhe writ petiti6n is accor^ <^i^foi41'i iTm^rf ^* te^t ^R^K ^)3:rf^R'3TI^T that a5 per the re^pondents they ha^ 118-10-2002. facts that whether the petitioner was ^^!: and also tha petitsoner ^j^ ciaiming that e same cannot be dedded in This writ m inyoive^ disputed facts, the petjtioner sts. iingiy, dismissed in iimine, 8d/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge