^s^s^ iSJSK-K; .".^^^^Kiii^iMS!S mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGABH AT BHA8PUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WritPetitionNo. 1191 of2(W6 Ramesh Prasad Tiwan, S/o Shri Narottam ftasad Tiwari, Aged atwut 40 years jwesently woiking as Manager, Udyami Vikas Sansthan, Below Raintekri, Rataqnir, District BUaspur(CG). VER8US 1. State of Chhattisgarii through tfae Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mantrlaya, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (CG). 2. The Managing Director, C.G. State Antyavasayee Vitya Vikas Nigam (Traimng Department) B-9, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipiir (CG). 3. The Manager, Antyavasayee Udyanii Prasikshan Kendra, Indiistrial Area, Dhamdha Road, Durg (CG). 4. TTie Managing Director ,Udyami Vikas Sansthan, 35, Shyamla Hills, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawaii (MP). 5. State of Madhya Pradesh Througb the Secretary, General Admimstraticm Department, Vatlabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 6. Unioa of India, through the Secretary, Department of Parsonnel & Traming, 3 Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Maiket, New Delhi. fWMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjHON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Sateh K. Asnihotai. J.) Present : ShriAlokPandey, Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri B.D. Gum, Advocate forthe respondent No. 2. Shri Gunidev Sharan, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 4. Ms Sharmila Singhai, Asst. Solicitor General for Unioa oflndia, respondent No. 6 ORALORDER (Passed on 12tt ofFebruary, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while workii^ as Lower Division Clerk in Udyami Vikas Sansthan, Rataiyur, District Bilaspur (CG), wag placed under siispension on 28.04.1997. His siispension was revoked by order dated 12.11.98 (Annexure P/l) stating that suspension period ofthe petitioner be treated as onduty. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner siibmits that after revocation of suspension, the petitioner has made several represedtations to the authority concemed but no decision has been taken aad no paymeirt for tfae period of suspension is Biade. 3. Leamed coiuisel appearing for fhe respondent No. 4 siibmits Ihat the -y petitioner is clamung clearance ofcertain dues arising from his outgtafriing salary. 4. Leamed counsel for the respondent No. 4 fartfaer submits that the entire payment and his salary as well as other payable amount by way ofprovident fimd have been paid to the petitioner for Ihe period of suspension. He fiirther submits that tfie respondent No. 4 has directed the respondent No. 3 to clear all the dues. Respondent No. 4 is not sure asto whether dues have been clear or not. 5. Be that as it may, it is admitted case that fhe petitioner is entitled to full pay and other allowances during Ifae period of suspension as per order dated 12.11.98 (Aimexure P/l). It is aAnitted by the leamed counsel appearing forlhe respondent No. 4 also. 6. In view of the facts situatiou of ease, the respondeat No. 4 is directed to ensure tfaat the entire payment to the petitioner for the period ofsuspension be made as early as possible, preferably within a period offour weeks. 7. With fhe above direction, the petition stands disposed of. No onter asto eosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge