?^r^fl"<tl^^F^ ^-^^'V^ ^'"u^.^'^V^A^^U'^J'^^'V^^"^tv/\^Aj^'^ ^- ; SJ^t.t^^f^^T^yi.n.p,/'^ IN THE HIGH GOURT QE JT3BIC&THRS, JABALPUK /-<.^^; <? WR3T PETTriON N0. 5'0'T1 Lf GF 2000 PETmONER ; U.K. SH&rs/ftST&VA, Son of late J.K. Slirivastava, Aged about 60 years, professor, "vaHijya vibhagadhya^sh, Diirga Hahavidhyalaya Raipur, . R^o Near Old Labour (Sourt, Anahd Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (M.P.') • VERSUS » - • • 1. Tbe State of Hadbya eradesh, Tbrough- SecE-etary, Hlgher Education Departraent, ; Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.y,. 2. COKimissioner, Higher Bducatlon Department Hindi Bbawan, Shyamla Hilla Bhopal (M.P.). 3. Durga Education Society, Through- it's President, Durga Hahavidhyalaya Campus, Moudhapara, Raipur (M.p.). 4. principal, Durga Mahavidhyalaya,, Raipur, District- Raipur (M.P.). VJBIT PBTITION^UHDER ARTICLES 226/22_7 OF IHE CONSTITIB'ION CTDIA CONTD....2, ^SSSSSI'/' \.^^::%.:^?^^' IP'"!~s:t?:?tt»)s.se.<al, :'t ^^^^i^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DwisjonBench Coram: Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRIT PETITION N0. S074/20QO PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS U.K. Shrivastava The State of Madhya Pradesh &0thers Present: Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashibhushan, counsel for the p^tiorier. Shri Prashant Mlshra, Addl. Advocate General for the State/ respondents No.1 and2. Shri Ktehore Bhaduri, counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22nd February, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed H.L Dattu, C.J. In this peUtion filed under Articte 226/227 <rf tte ConsUtutlon of India, petitioner, who was working as a Professor (n Durga Mahavidyalaya, Raipur/respondent No.4, has called in question tlw correctness or otherwise ofthecommunication issued to him bythe respondents on 25-8-2000. 2) The relief sought in the writ petiUon is to quash the impugned order Annexure-P/4 and further permit hlm to perfwm hts duBes till he attains the age of 62 years. •^^Vi.SWi-^ : 3) During pendency of the petition, by virtua of the interim order granted by this Court petiUoner continued to work till attaining the age of superannuation; namely62years. 4) Since the petitfoner is now retiredfrom senrice after attaining the age of superannuaUon, the relief sought for by the pditioner would not survive for consideraUon ofthis Court. 5) Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitiwier would submit ttiat tfte petitioner is entitled for the salary during the period he was prevented from discharging ttie duBes in the respondent College. 6) Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents would submil that the petitioner in this writ petition has not prayed for the aforesaid relief. 7) In our view, in view of ttie efflux of time, the relief sought for by the petitioner would not sunrive for consideration of this Court, therefore, the petition .requires to be disposed of as having become infructuous. However, liberty requlres to be granted to the pet'rtioner to approach the respondent auttiorities for payment of saliHy during the period he worked in the respondent College. Accordingly, ttie following: Order 1) Ttie petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, liberty Is reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the fourth respondent for payment of salary during ttie period he was prevented from discharging his funcBons as a Professor of the Institutlon. ; ^•);%t; li( ItS-f-aaSSiisasBS '•I «1 J 4 . 78 2) If and wrtien such a representaUon is made, the fourth respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate ordere in accordance with taw after affbraUng an opportun'rty of hearing to the peUBpner, 3) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd//- . V.K.Shrivastava Judge •,':fe^^ '•^=^.:^f'^~.:'-^^