IN 'mE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WfiIT PE'CITION N0. (oSg OF 2004 PEIIIIONEfi RESPONDENTS ant. Chanda Sahu, wife of Shri U.S. Sahu, aged about 52 years, resident of Raj a Talab, Kaipur, Dis-trict Raipur (C.G«). State of Chhattisgarh Thrgagh- Secretary, Women and Child Development Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur. Deputy Director (Establis'nment) Women and Child Development, Raipur (C.G.)o Project Officer Unified Ghild Development project Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.). / PETITION UNDER ARCTCLE 226 OF CDHSTITOTION OF INDIA. Details of the petition s- XI-HC-22 3T[^T^T fN?;3:n^T aiiiRiHfN I)-' 3^'^wid^, ^Tily'id, Ridiyy [W-l^cb ^^^^p- h-lc- ••nwTTsnTraT-------------"--1'--^ 200 f^% sn^r^RTWHfer 19.9.2006 Shri Ratan Pushty, co "Shri Sandeep Yadaw, respondents. Heard fhially wifh the Order passed as fo11o\ By way of this petiti^ fhe relief for canying out contaiaed in Annexure P-1.1 A penisal of Annexuj who was working as Pam( TOda, Distt. Raipur was tr^ Grih, Mana, Distt. Raipur| show fhat fhe petitioner Wrfc^to-WRff ^'fsc^ TfSFRR A arf^iTsn^T unsel for the petitioner. Deputy 6ovt. Advocate for the State/ :onsent ofthe parties. s: OJRALORDER >n, the petition has mainly pi-ayed for ber orcler of transfer dated 17.2.2004 icdressed. l^eamed cov^ grievance was that the s^ October 2003 till the datel thereafter also has not b^ petitiou would show that re P-l would show that the petitioner, ekshate in Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojna, nsferred fi-oiu fhere to Bal Sanrakshaii The uleadings of fhe petition would (was transferred by the said order on 17.2.2004, but she was ncjt being relieved by the local authorities ofTUda forwhich she had fo ffle the instairt petition on 29.2,2004, Leanied counsel f^r the petitioner makes fhis stateinent that after filing this writ pejdtioner, the petitioner was reUeved from Tilda, tlierefore, her inai^i grievsuice I'aised ui the petition is nsel fui'ther subinits that her otlier Uarv for the nionfh of July 2003 and of fiUng of the writ petition aad further •n paid to her. The rep1y of the writ ertain Kroiinds have been taken by the y XI-HC-22 3n^r^r R-iiebsn^T giITR;(rf?tT ! 3^'-:!TWRPT, ^xny'16, R|i11<1^< 3TT^?T^acb —...y\}.f..-7..6.?.6j^p' KTOCT-gwra? ••'•"••l-•'••••~••'"''•/^ Soo f^s sn^r g^nw fff?(T 2- State, on which, Uie salary grounds are specificaUy niej by the State/ cespondents. Leamed State Counsell of July has been paid, onwards was not paid to t(ie fulfiU fhe target given to her| ahaost always reinauied at^; without any sanctioned le^ displlted by leanied counsel This is a factual asp^ct going into the aierits of fhe| petitioner file a detailed ailtiiority claunuig her salar^ been paid and let the concj representation filed by the relevant rules for payiuent seivant Uke tfae petitioner, ;rounds as to why fhe pet^ salaiy ofthe period in questi If such a repi^sentati period of 21 days froin toda; concemed aufhorities wifhicl the date of receipt of fhe sai(|l diis Coiul has uot expressec WTfepft^ WTcff it'tecA'^TRTI: ^srf^lTBTI^T was not paid to tjie petitioner. These itioned vide para 12 of the reply filed subinits tiiat the salaiy of the niontfa lowever, salary froui October, 2003 petitioner as fhe petitioner did not despite of so niaay reiniaders and she ient without any prior permission or ive froin fhe of5ce. This has been ;for the petitioner. of the uiatter, for which, without inatter, I deein it proper that let the pepresentation befoi'e the concemed ^ for tlie period for which she has not. 'nied authorily take decision. on the ^etitioner at the earliest applying fhe of salary in case of the Goveminent |by passing a reasoned order on tiie itioner will not be eutitled to get the pn. i|3il is ffled by the petitioner within a |, tiie saine shaU be disposed of by the a furfher period of two months froia representation. It is made clear that aiiy opinion on tlie nierits of the case XI-HC-22 an^i^r f^^TiRSn^T aiiri^iHf^cf f^ 0^0 3ST '<ll.i<l<1i|, «Tfl<1JliS, [slcliy^ H|t<WI *iW«h 3TT^?T M^cb (^•b^. 200 3n^r?RiTiiR;gf?tr of the petitioner aad tiie the representation in departinent - The petition stands Accordingly, I.A.No. staads disposed of. C.C. asperrules. autAorities are free to take the decision on with tiie niles prevaiting m the accorctance fin^lly disposed of. .5^40/2004 for zirgent hearing also Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^rafe^ ITTOcif^'fet^ TRfKP: ^srf^ilTSI^T