.&$E‘QPJ§ m3 HQN 'um STWBE; ADMLNIbTm‘aTIW TM BUIWKL RAIPUR (3mm) CkyQlU 1 ) 3’ L 9]] '7 c‘xo‘” L2 o0‘g‘o kgco‘aoua Apgli cant R.$. Nag, s/c Laue :3ukhroo Earn Nag, engaw 45 yeaxs Haad masbar mama ni’ao iii ghar $eéon (Eaxy $¢hoo1 Kanker mam.) " Respon&ant$ (ll V$ rsus . state ef WP. through the wcmwnf Txibala welfare } Lepam‘ant Véa llabh Bhawan. ishopal ($11.13.) (2) WSSioner Tribal Bévelepment fEpament, $i£tpuda lawman. H10pal “Vi-Po) Easis tam: Commi ssi ener Tii bal w $331“: Davelcpment mstxict Kanka r (M. E.) (4) The Collector, Ranker. (M.?.) , (5) The Puncipal Higher Saéondaxy (3) $Chool Namardea matrict Kanker (baa) ': I‘Rpplica’cian undier section 19 m? Amiai$triatiw Tribunal 1985 —-m—u——————~.———nn-—w~——..m...——n~.-——_ l. Nana anti eadtkess of.’ kg mama above. £1 appli cant. OO¢2 HEBH QQURT QF CHHATTISGARH : 5ILA§PuR WEN PETgTiQN {5) ND.318?I26G§ $§nqie gemh: Hcm’b!e $h§'§ Mamnéra Mahan $hr§va$tmia, g3. Pa’asent:a Shri M K. Dubey, counsel for the petiiioner. Shrl Chandresh Shrivastava, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent No‘1L3 ‘io 5‘ QRAL GRDER (@agwfi 0?; WIS ‘mm c§ay of Math, 26W) finaay, With the aansent of Seamea cmwnse! far ihe parties, the: peimon is heme! {2) The petitioner is aggrieved 0:1 amourit oi‘ nonupaymgnt af gaiary wej‘. Ji;iy.i§§9, Vicie as‘der dated 25~06ni€§9a under ari arrangement made, the pei‘i‘iiener wa3 iransf’erred from ihe pQSt of Heaci Masier, Narhardeo Higher Siemndaiy $chosi, Kanker ta the Middie Smhooi, Jangawaram, Block Kata. Hgwa'er, few days thereafter, anether order wee paseed by the State Gavin en {$4.374 $99, ey whieh, trartsi’er at the eetitiener was cemeiied. Ttae taetitionet citirirtg that pet‘iod though was reiieved, wag ehtitieoi to cehtinue in view u: the eenceiiatien order {tated 09-.O7~19§9r It ie canteheed that on representation merge, the Assietant Cummissiorrer, What Deveiopment, Kenker vicie meme dated 04~Q84Q99 requiree the Pi’ineipai at the sehool to take appropriate eteps in the matter e? drewei er seiary after taking dare irretructiene t irrom Secretary, Department of Tribe! Weifare, Ehcpai ee aise from Cemmiseiener. The Qemmiesioner vide ite meme eieted 30—1Q-19é39 directed the Coilecter (Tribe! Deveiepme‘nt), Karrirer to make meeeesary arrangement for payment of eatery t0 the eetitierier. in View 0f the feet that the $tete Gavt, had ceneeiiee hie erder cf trahefer \iide erder dated OQnQ'h’ieQg. Again rm 15—1 1~1$99, the Gemmrseieher direetett the Aeeietant Cemmissioher, '[rihai Dexretepment, Kanker fer makirig rte-ceseary arrangement for eayment of eatery to the petitiener. A copy of this eeme were ates enciersed’te the Pr’iricipai‘ Narherdeo Higher $eceerjery Sehoei, Kentiei ta ecceet the jeinirrg s3? the eetitior‘mr ah’t make neeeeeary arrangement ax $¥§ELE$ANT R. $. Nag Veww RE3939§E3§ENT$ State 0f Maa'hya Prade$h and oiher$ fer payment 0f salary to the petitioner and to report compliance. Anether meme dated 06-01~2000 was issued from the omce of the Commissioner, Tribe; Development, Bhopal to the Principal, Narhardeo Higher Secondary Slchool; Kanker, in continuetten at eatlier letter dated 15-11-1999 to make arrangement for payment of the salary to the petitiener. {3) Stand 0f the respondents is that though the transfer order of the petitioner was canoellett and there was no post of Head Master, against which, salary of the petitioner could be drawn. This can not be accepted because in View of the directions issued from time to time vide memo dated 04-08-1 999 (Annexure ft— 4), memo dated 30-10—1999 (Annexure A5), memo dated 15414999 {Annexure A~6) and memo dated 96-01-2000 (Annexure AJ). the authorities sub-ordinate to the Commissioner, Tribal Development namely the Collector, Tribal Devetopment, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development and Principal of the concerned schoot were under an obligation to make necessary arrangement for payment of salary to the petitioner. Vide order dated 06-01- 2000 (Annexure A-7), Principal, Narhardeo Higher Secondary $chooi, Kanker, was directed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bhopai to make necessary arrangement for payment of salary to the petitioner against the vacant post of Lecturer. {4) Learned counsel forthe respondents No.1, 3 to 5 further submitted that the salary of the petitioner could not be drawn in View of the objeotion raised by the§istrict Treasury, Kanker as is reflected from its memo (Annexure R-5). it is also submitted that an offer was given to the petitioner vide memo dated 12-10- 1999 {Annexure R-E) that if he joined at another vacant post in Block- Koyaiibeda, the problem coulddoe resolved. The petitioner has brought on record memo dated i3nt2-1999 of the Coitector and another memo dated 17-04~2000 of the Commissioner in response to memo dated 13-12—1999. {5) Qnce the transfer of the petitioner was canceiled, petitioner was left with no other option but to continue in thesarne institution i.e. Narhardeo Higher Seeondary School, Kanker. Respondent authorities were under an obligation to matte necessan/ arrandement for payment of salary to the petitioner. Having aliowed to continue the petitioner in the same school, respondents could not N i deny payment of saiaw a5 cominuance of the petitioner in the same schooi, was purwant t0 the Govt. order dated 09-07-1999. It is aiso dear from memo dated 1%04-2000 that the ban against the iransfer was lifted during the period with effect from 01 “04-2000 to 31 —05-2000. if the petitioner couid not be transferred against the vacant poet, it was none of his fault. As such‘ it is found that deniai of eaiary of the petitioner was; not on account of any fauit on his part, {6) in this View of the matter, i am inciined to aiiow the petition. Respondent authorities are directed to make payment of saiary to the petitioner fer the period subeequent to hie joining in the Nathardeo Higher Secondary $chooi, Kanker‘ in eompiiance of order dated 094374 999. Turnane Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l