Narayan Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1649 Chatt

                                       -1-




                                                                           NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                           WPS No. 4098 of 2021
  1. Narayan Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Banshi Lal Manikpuri, Aged About 50
     Years Posted As Assistant Grade - III, In The Office Of Block Education
     Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                    Versus
  1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School
     Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
     Chhattisgarh.
  2. Director, Directorate Of Public Education, Raipur, District Raipur
     Chhattisgarh.
  3. Collector Mungeli District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
  4. District Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
  5. Block Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Yatharth Singh, Advocate For State : Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

09/08/2021

1. Aggrieved of the non-granting of benefits which the petitioner would

have been entitled for had he not been placed under suspension

vide order dated 07.10.2013 and which was revoked subsequently

on 06.01.2017, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, he was placed under

suspension on 07.10.2013 on account of the petitioner getting

implicated in a criminal case under Section 420 & 409 of IPC and the

petitioner also was arrested for sometime and thereafter was

released on bail. The criminal case ultimately ended up vide the

judgment dated 25.04.2019 where the petitioner has been acquitted

from the charges levelled against him. Meanwhile, however

suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was taken back in

service on 06.01.2017. According to the petitioner for the period

during which he was suspended, he has not been paid the

substantial allowance, nor has he been provided with the annual

increment for the period of suspension, nor has he been considered

for further promotion on account of pendency of the said criminal

case.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, at this juncture submits that let

the petitioner makes a detailed representation to the respondents

No. 2,4 & 5 within a period of three weeks from today and the

respondents No. 2,4 & 5 inturn shall consider the same and take

appropriate decision in accordance with the rules governing the field

and also taking into consideration the provision of the fundamental

rules applicable so far as the petitioner is concerned.

4. Accordingly the petition is as of now disposed off directing the

petitioner to make an additional representation in respect of his claim

and the Respondents 2,4&5 in turn shall take an appropriate

decision in this regard at the earliest preferably within a period of 90

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge J-