-j BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMnttSIRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR, CHHAT11SGARH 2Ei5AS,a3; ^2.1i.£atl-2n S2 /2001 u.p/'^^y^'j Dr. RajendraPrasad Shukla> Son of Shri Rara Pati Shukla» Chier'Exeeutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Patthalgaoa, Dlstrlct Jashpur (Chhattisgam) Yersus 1, AEpJ.AC..a.IIt State of Chhattisgarh, Through secretary, Tribal welfare Depsrtment, . D.K.S.Shawan, Raipur (C.Ga) Commlssioner» BilasDur Division, Bllaspur (C'nhat'tisgarh) . . Collector, Dj.strlct .Tashpur (Gh'nattisgarh) ». Npn-ADpUcaafcs APPLICATIOH UHDBR SSCTION 19 OF THS2 AQMINISTRATIV5 a'RIBUNM.__ACT. S9S5. (1) P&RTI CJL.AR OF THS APPLIC.WT; As stated above in -fche cause tltle» (2) P^TiaJT-.AR 0]? S-IE NON APPLICAICTSs AS s-tated ^>oTre In. the cause ti-fcle. (3J PARTZOJL^'iR OF TI1E OPJ3ER W-TICil AGAINST TO-iB INSTJ.sIJS ftPPLI'^ATION IS MA^ES -r.i'/y °¥„ iO HIGH COURTtMP* CHHATTI8GARH :BILASPUR smaLB BBIICH : HON'BLB SHRI MAMINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J, Writ Petttion (81 No.3891/2005 PETITIONBR RESPOHDBNT8 Dr. Rajeadra Pr^ad Shulda Versus State ofChhattisgarh and others ABoearance: Sint RashiniThakur, counsel for the pctitioner. Shri Ajay Dwiwedi, Dy. Govt, Advocate for fhe State/respondeats. ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on. 21.4.2010) 1. This petition has been filed by fhe petitioner a^gricved on account of alleged noa-payment of salaiy fium April, 1999 tiU fhe date of filing of the petitioit. 2. Briefly stated, the case offhe petitioner is fhat whfle he was working as Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Panchayat, Pattha^aon, District Jashpiir, aa order of repatriation was passed, which led to fiting of petition before fhe Tribunal. White finalty disposing ofthe said petition, fhe Tribttaal directed respoadents to consuler petitioner's representationwith regatd to graat of salary ia respect ofpcriod fpom April, 1999 to July, 1999. Thereaftier, petitioner represeated his caae to fhe respondents, but the salaiy for fhe relcvant period was wrongty calculated at the rate of Rs.29,645/-, whereas, petitioner was entitled fo be paid salaiy at the rate of Rs.11,417/- per monfh. It is aSao submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.4.2001. As uo chai^e shcet was sewed withm 45 days, petitioner iS:'ll 11, s -2- subinitted his joining on 7.6.2001. The petitioner was neither paid subsistence aUowance nor salary for tUe subsequent period afiter 7.6.2001. 3. Submission of tearaed couasel for fhe petitioner is fhat thc respoudents have uot complied with fheorder earUer passed by fhe Tribunal on 11.8.2000 in T.A. No.03/2000. It is aigued that petitioner was entitled for paynient of salary for fhe period finni April 1999 to Jidy, 1999 at the rate of Rs.11,417/- per monfh which is clear fiwm salaiy certifeate (Annexurc A-6) flled along wlth the rejoiader. Rcspondents oflFered to pay onfy Rs.29,645/-. Thercforc, fhe petitioner refused to recewe fhc same as a laark of his protest It is also submitted that the petitioaer was placed uadcr suspeasion on 23.4.2001, but no chaige shcet WE served within tune stipulated, fherefore upbn expuy of 45 days, fhe ordw of suspenston stood automatically revoked. Petitioner having subBaitted his joiait^ 6n 7.6.2001, he was entitled for payment of fufl salaiy finm 7.6.2001 onwards. Respondcnts neither paid subsastence allowance nor the fuU salaiy after 7.6.2001. 4. Per contra, subintesiou ofleanaed coiinsel fer the respondents is fhat after fhe order of Tribuaal, respondents passed appropriate oiders on petitioner's appUcation for graat ofcamed leave in respect offhe period fi?om 13,4.1999 to 15.7.1999 oa medical grounds, which CTme out to be Rs.29,645/-. Thcsaul amountwas offered to &e pctitioner but the petitioner -did not accept It is also submitted that in so &s as remaining period ofabsencc is concenued, pctitianer was rcquired to submit appUcatmn for grant pf eamed teave so that fhe same could also be reguterized and necessaiy orders may be passcd. However, petttioner did not submlt any application in respect of the period 6-om. -3- ^. ilil^ ^f 16.7.1999 to 16.8:2000. It is also subnutted that petitioner's ctaim for paynient of salary at the rate of Rs. 11,417/ - per month is not made out fiom petitioner's own document (Aanexiu-e A-6) which shows tfaat ia respect ofperiod from April 1999 to Juue 1999, amount psyable after atl deductionswas Rs.10,665/-, whereas for fhe month ofJuly, 1999 such amount was Rs. 11, 120/- and not Rs. 1 1,417/- m any case.in so far as allegation ofnoa-paymcnt ofsubsisteift'e aUowancc is concenaed, it is submitted that fhe amount was not received by fhe petitioner because of dispute with regard to calculation ofSalaiy. It te further argued fhat chaq;e sheet was issued to tfae petitioaaer wittua 45 days fium fhe date of issuance of order of suspension as xcflected firom meuio dated 1.6.200l(Aimexure R-5). His suspcnsion, therefore, continucd and fhe petitioner was onfy entitted to payiaent of suspension aUowance aad not fuU salaiy fiom 7.6.2001, as claimed. 5, I have heard lcamed counsel for fhe partfes aad peruaed the records. 6. From the order of thc Tribunal passcd on 11.8.2000 (AnncxureA-1), it is foimd fbat the Tribunal taking iato coasideration petitloner's grievance wifli regard to non-payment of salaiy for tfae pcriod Aprfl, 1999 to Juty, 1999 directed that necessaiy orders be passed on petitioner's representation and after petitioner fa found cxititted for the leave aad leave salary, he be pajd such salaiy. The order of fhe Tnbunal itself shows fhat the petitioner handed ovcr chaige on 2.4.1999 aad fhen submitted fals joinlng on 16.7.1999. It has also been observed fhat petitioner had appUed for eanied teave on xnedical grounds Qx>m. 13.4.1999 to 13.7.1999. Respondents passed neccssary orders on petitfoner's appUcatfoa for grant ofearaed teavc m respect of period fium 13.4.1999 to 13.7,1999. However, as petitioner did not submlt any appKcation for regularizmg other perfod ofabsence i-e. fiom ...>(»'""alitl ;::.-^sr ':i : :i:ti' M'»l:':;,sl-°f>l ";;:sh.i; " ^'S'r. '--w. %i;%ffl®BiR»H|KBI.Bgi V11- 16.7.1999 tol6A:2000,titie mattercouldaot toedetadcdm cespcct of the said period. P^litiorier's justffisation for non-acoepttog the amount 'ofFered and aon-subintesion of application as dcmaaded by •thc respoiidcnts that as proper ainouat was not ofFered, pctttioner was ; justifcd in adopting non-cooperative atdtudc caoaot be acccpted. Furfhcr, as fhc Chai%e sheet was tesued bcfore thc expuy of period of 45 days, pietitioner could not claitn automati.G revocation of siispension ficbm 7.6.2001. 7. In the rcsult, thls petition is finalty dMpoaed of wifh direction to icspondcnts to inake payiiaent of salary to the petitioner ia respect of - period fiom 13.4.1999 to 13.7.1999 at the rate of Rs. l0,665/ - after aH deductions wifhin a period of 3 ruonths 6mm. fhe date of receipt of copy ofthisorder. 8. If fhe petitioxier subnaits appropriate application for grant of leawe under the leave rutes, withia a period of 2 monfhs from today, respondents shaU take appropriate decision wifh regaid to period of absence from. 16.7.1999 to 16.8.2000 within 3 monfto fiiom the date of .receipt of such application, ifaay. In so fer as subsistehce aUowance in respect at period of suspension is coacemed, petitioner is entltled for payment of subsustence aUowaace 6x>st 23.4.2001 tiU revocation of his suspension. If ttiat amount has not been paid, fhe samfi shall be paid to fhe petitioner withia one monfh fix>ni fhe date of receipt ofcopy offhis order. • 9. There shaU be no oider as to cost. Sd/- ftBSKQSl Man-.ndraMohanShrWastava Judge ftll;