BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No.5'8h5 / 2011 Petitioner .1.^0^ ..y^^> ^V3S^-""" ^"^ ^•" Umesh Kumar Yadu, S/o Shri Bhukhan Lal Yadu, Aged about 40 years, R/o Near Bamleshwari Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) -v<^v Versus Respondents 1. 2. State Bank of Iridia Through its Regional Manager, Regional Business Office (Region 7), Byron Bazar, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) Assistant General Manager (Administration), Disciplinary Proceeding Section, Administrative Office, 1 Floor, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA STI^T ^BI K.-»f | ^«iT3Tf^?T ^i*ii^> ttfci.. k T -3^s, -^wv^, w^^, fs^iRry . IM.^^.S^^^/^ an^ T^q; (i^.^q) TRiTW ^I 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 29-09-2011 Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel Heard on admissfon. This petition has been filed by] the part of the respondent in not r^l payable to the petitioner under W^ bipartite settlement. far the petitkmer. 1 the petitioner aggrieved by inaction on ileasing the arrears of salary, which is jge Revision of 2007 as settled in 91h Leamed counsel for the account of Wage Revision could nof which permits the respondents to vi( Wage Revision only on the departmental enquiry. He further su| already been stayed by this Court '|i W.P.(S)No.3578 of 2011. Howev^i subsistence allowance is not beind entitted under the Rules. servce or speoific condition incorpit> effect that on account of pender)i q;mf?piS~-f 'wV 4 f^s xfsKfK Araffiroan^l Shrivastava. J. petit|oner submits that-arreara of salary on be withhehj and there is no provision, (ithhekJ arreare of salary on acoount of gr|ound of pending criminal case or smits that the departmental enquiry has We order dated 06-07-2011 passed in r, in orcter to harass the petitioner, paid to the petitbner, to whfch, he is Unless there are specifte ri^es gowming terms and ccnditions of ated in the bipartitesettlement to the ;y of oriminal case or depari:mental enquiry, arrears of salary on accoijnt of Wage Revision shall not be paid, such Wage Revision and arrears ofjsalary are required to be paid. Therefore, it is ordered that the respondent No.1 shall considerthe grievance of the petittoner and ret^ase the arrears of salary on account of XI-HC—78 SD^T ^il Vi4"a ^SfT^n^T sh^licf) ,;'f-3^;] ^ r Tumane t ~3^ "41.41cPT, ^xto'Tg', fqcll'yy 3TI^?T XR^ ('^f^'i^T) yraim ^fta an^'.T _ ') ._ Wage Revision and shatl not be w| pendency of departmental enquj governing terms and condittons of syndersuspensipo,^ is entitled to •^•'^v--j-s':.''. *.'-^y.: ^..^?..^';^ ;o7yil ^ shall ateo be consklered and n -^ petittoner is'still aggrieved, it woulcp applteation in the pending writ pe( appropriate direction, wif?ro)--=( •m'wi'f '4 feist irSregT ^i'affiro 311^1 /|hheld the same only on the ground of jry, unless there are specifc rules ^ervice to that effect. If the petitioner is [suspension atlowance, and this aspect susflensun altowanoe shall be paid. If the be open for him to move appropriate titton i.e. W.P.(S)No.3578 of 2011 for With the aforesaid observatic|n, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .J.-