,1^' o XN THS SO.GH CQ13SW fSS' SVSSXBSS9KS KI BIIAgWK (C.6. ) IjRXtPBTI'BEQN NQ» l(^ 9-9 QS 2084' AEman Bhai g/o slae.i.kb Saffar , aged cteoafe 81 yea£s» eccupafe.lon seEvica in Muni.elpaJ. CoaaeAl GhaBgIieda, e/o ©hargtaodaTelisil Qfoacglaoda Bist.ci.et. Raigaeta {e©). pETiroeaBR A N O 'Baa state of ehhatfcl.sgarh. Throagb.; 'tihe- see.Ee'feafy i»epa.Etaaa;nfe :o£,&ocal S»l£: Qovernnefflfc» MaafeEal.ey* D«K«s*BuAXaing,Raipar (CS) cfadsfi K(U!iiejLpal@fi£l.£<ae.B : : ; ,, MaatcJtpal eoanell ©hazghedaBisfcBtefe Ralgaah •' The Deputy B.S.reeteor, .^t5' / Nagar P*asl»ashatt, Bi-XaspUE (ee). <^G^; s/$?'3t ^/t/^-- " \Si/ ••' »< M 't • f ^^ '}^' :'. ^ •_'' J W WR2T PETT12®»WaBR AB'BICaBS:; ^•.-Q ^^ ^SSt OP' THB e®NST2W®a:WI OF INBIA ^"^——1- ^ ^.>-1 30jf—^ •tf *-U/a. r>A'fe..-^4.<^nflu? HIGH <X>URT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTI8GARH: BILA8PUR Sinj^e Btinch: Hon'ble ShrtSatIsh K. Agnthotrl, J. W. P. Bo. 1699 of 2004 Petitioner : Arxnan Bhai Versus Respondent : The State of CUhattisgaA & ofhers Shri Awadh Tnpathi, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Sint. Aaju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. l. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. ORDIKEt (28*" Aagust, 2006) 1. The case of fhe petitioner is that he was appointed in accordance with fhe provisions of fhe M.P./e.G. Miuucjpal Eittplojrees Recruitment aad Conditk>ns ofSeruiceRules, 1968 on piobation fora period oftwo years. During fhe pi'obation a show cause notice dated 2.9.1988 was issued to fhe petitioner, allcging that he remsaned abseut for a long period and^fhe petitioner was disengagsd.jETcun semce. 2. The petitioner chaBenged fhe said show cause notiee and disengagenieut fixua service in the High Court of Judicahuc at Jabalptir ia M.P.No. 1391/89. TheHigh Court of Judicdtuuje at Jabalpur vide urterua order dated 15.3.1991 directed the MpaiGipal Coiuicil, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh to leixistate the petiiioner ni servfce and eontinue to pay his Tegular salaiy tiB the disposal |af fhe petition. The High Court of Madliya Pradesh by fiiial oider|dated 28.9.1999 observed as under:- "I deein it expedient lliatji^pondentNo.S tates'S^^ in pursuance offIieJDOtiGe(ftiuijex.P-11), f"i.tl 1 ! illiakur consideration fhe repty of fhe petitioner, wittun 6 laontlis fix>iu the date ofreceipt/productionofacopyofttus order. I direct accordingty. TUl fhe xnatter is fiiialty decidal by respondeDit No.2, iaterun order dated l5.3.1991shan renaani operative. Needless to state fhat ia case the decision to be taken in pursuance ofUiis order goes adverse to fhe petitioner, he stiaB have Uberly to assail fhe same iuaccordance wiffa l»w." 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits fhat the petitioner is stiU contiaumg ia service but he was not pald regular salary as per fhe order dated 15.3.1991 and confmned by fhe order dated 28.9.1999, passcd by fhe High Court ofjudjcature at Jabalpur. Tfae High Court of Macthya Piadesh directed thc respondent No.3 to take fiiial decision in purauaD.cc of fhe notice wifhin a penod of six mon.fhs fmni fhe date of tiie reccipt/production of a copy of fhat order. Leamed counsel appearing for tfae petitioner iufonns that no fixial decision has been taken soferby tjac respoxulent No.3. 4. The respondent No.3 is accoidiagfy dnected to complete the prbcess oftaking fixial decision wifhia a period of fhice inonfhs piirsuant tp the order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the High Court ofJudicatuTe at JabatpurmM.P.No. 1391/89. 5. In view ofthe foregoiag, fhis petition. stetnds disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge v::^ .;i-^ttNtfei^35i^ 3^^.-^, ^;.;- .j:i^i/^j!!,^i M