Eff i‘ ,;, Vii, i i ® w?” / CR/ EN THE UglGH COURT OF CHIMLIwGARH Ag.ng}. W3 Writ Pexmion NouwgL 2Gk of 2003 /, pETITiom-gg : Dinesh Kumar Tamrakar son of Ramkrishna Tamrakar” aged 42 years, Assi5tan’c Teacher, Middle $c'nool, Rajim Distt. Raipur (C.G.) . VERSU S Liasggrigw§ : l. State of Chhat'tisgarh School ”through the Secretary giducation Dep artmen't Mantral’aya D.K.S. Bhavan G.E. Road Raipur (c.G.):;.;, 2. Block Eduction Officer Fingeshwar Distt.Raipur (C.G.) 3'. Principal Middle School Ra$im Disizrict Raipur (C.G.) . 4. District Educatign Officer X, Raipur D 3111: Raipur (C.G.) . EEEQIA®~U§PER&E§&&Q§£§¥§E§E§§£§i§§$ DETMLS 0&1 ggTLTIgg . , / i £ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2003 Petitioner : Dinesh Klimar Tamrakar Versus Respondents : State of Chhath'sgarh & others Single Bench: Hon’bls Mr. Justice Satish K. Agihohi. Shn' H.B. Aglawal, Senior counsel‘ with Shn' Pankaj Agrawal, i; cousnel for the Petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents] State. petitioner has Eed this petition for quashjng the order dated 29.2.2003 (Annexure P/ 2) and order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P/8) whereby the Principle, Government Higher Secondary School, Rajim lodged the complaint in Police Staiioin, Rajim. The facts in nutshell of the case are that by order dated ii 9.1.2001(Annexme R/ 1), the Principal, Primary School, Koma, Block Fingeshwar, Disnict Raipur was directed by the respondent No. 4 to relieve the petitioner for posting him in the Middle: School, Rajim, District Raipur. Thereafter, one more order was issued on 5.7.2001 i (Annexure P/ 1), whereby the Headmaster, Primary School, Koma, Block Fingeshwar was directed to relieve the petitioner for joining at Government Middle School, Rajim. It is not clear as to why two orders were passed for the same purpose. Subsequently by order dated 29.3.2003 (Annexure P/ 2), the petitioner was directed to report back at old place ie. Primary School, Koma, Block F‘ingeshwar, District Raipur. According to learned counsel for the pen'tioner; the peh'h'oner has not been paid salary hem July, 2003 to December, 2003. ‘ Learned " counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a posiu‘on to inform ORAL ORDER (6th May, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the xm é/ji 1 ‘ the Court as to Why the petitioner was not paid his salmy, when he was working at Rajim. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents that it is for Middie’School, Rajim to make payment of the salary is unsustainable, because both the schools where he was working are the Government Schools. It is for the Govemment not for one school or other school to ensuxe that the teacher Working in the school is given his salary. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the papers appended to the petition and Ieturn, it is not clear as to which is the Ielevant order by which the petitioner was directed to report at Government Middle School, Rajim for teaching. It appears that by order dated 29.3.2003, the petitioner was directed to join back his old place at Pnmary School, Kama, Block F‘ingeshwar, District Raipur. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, should examine the matter personally and pass the appropriate order for release of salaly of the petitioner as well as the posting of the petitioneriat appropriate place. With regard to the complaint in police station by letter dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P/8), it cannot be decided for want ,of materials, except vague averment in the petin'dn. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department to examine the complaint of the petitioner as stated above and pass the appropriate order Within a period of six weeks horn the'date of receipt] production of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ‘ Swish K. Agnihotd L \ Judge 1 Sd/— .)_ n. in