RAJ KUMAR CHAURASIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P/4), whereby the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit certain amounts .

(2.) SHRI R.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Supervisor Trainee (Electrical). The petitioner joined on 01.08.2011 and tendered his resignation on 22.09.2012. By drawing attention on resignation dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure P/3), it is contended that petitioner had already deposited one month's salary as a notice pay. During the course of argument, Shri Singh submits that petitioner is ready to deposit all other amounts except stipend, which is quantified at item No. 3 in the document dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P/4). In other words, it is contended that except stipend amount, the petitioner is not challenging any other amount. By placing reliance on Article 23 of the Constitution and judgment of this court in WP No. 6247/2006(s) (Shyam Singh Arya Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.) it is contended that taking away the said amount would mean that the respondents have taken "Begar" from the petitioner which is prohibited under the Constitution. Thus order Annexure P/4 is prayed to be set aside to the extent stipend amount is directed to be deposited by the respondents.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.