\J\ / www¢ IN THE N’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHA‘TTISGARH) w.P~.1S)No. iW] 0f 2010 :z/ Smt Anukampa John Wife of PETITIONER late H'Lrendra Kumar John aged about 55 years suspended; Physical H i Instructor,§ Shaskiya Kanya Ucchattar ‘ Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) ’ Versus WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HO RESPONDENTS /:1) State of C.G. through The Secretary Adim Jati Evam Harijan Kalyan Vibhag, Bhavan, Raipur D.K.S. (Chhattisgarh) ’52) Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas, Korea, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) 1‘ v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I WRIT PETITION (S) No. 241 o‘f2010 v PETITIONER ' fStht. Anukampa John. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of C.G. & another. v’ V ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB Hon’ble Shrl Satlsh K AgnlhotrlLJ Present : Shrl H B AGrawal Senlor Advocate w1th Smt Itu Ram Das Advocate for the petltloner Shrl V V S Moorthy, Deputy A G for the State/respondents ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29m day ofMarch, 2010) 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the date ofjoining of the petltloner on duty 1 e 19 12 2007 ls legal and correct and accordmgly, the ; petltroner may be pald her salary from 19 12 2007 to 28 03 2009 It appears that the petitioner is‘not seeking a wri't’or direction by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.‘ I of India but a declaration, which is not within purview of the writ jurisdiction; particularly in case of disputed facts. Joining report dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P/2), is an application addressed to the Collector (Tribal Welfare) Koria/annexing a copy of the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.‘(S) No. 4929/2006 wherein it was observed that the petitioner may go for joining the office. The State/respondents, tin its y ‘ reply; sub/mits that the petitioner was called to report joining in the office of theJCollectpr, Tribal Welfare vide memo dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure P/4) ' V ’ and'pursuant to the said memo, the petitioner joined on duty on 28.03.2009. It ls not correct t6 say that the petitioner has jc}>ined h6r duty on 19.12.2007. Th¢ petitioner was thereaiier placed under suspension on 01.04.2009 (Annexure R/2) on the ground that she remained absent unauthorisedly from 10.1 13.1982 and enquiry is pending consideration. The netitioner has not produced any other document except the applicatlon (Annexure P/2) whereln 1t 1s stated by the petitioner that the petltloner had Jorned on 19 12 2008 On the other hand the State counsel submrts that the petltroner had Jorned only on 28.03.2009 after the memo was sent by the respondent She has been placed under suspensmn for remammg absent for such a long pemod unauthorlsedly These are purely questlon of facts whrch cannot be decided by this Court on the basis of two statements made by the parties. It is, therefore, just and proper to direct the Collector, ,Koria, to look into the claim iof the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate order with regard the dispute of her joining duty, in accordance with law on its own perspective and merit. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge