Halakmaniya Poya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(S) No. 508 of 2021

1. Halakmaniya Poya W/o Surendra Prasad Aged About 24 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Anganwari Worker Center Kodakupara Village - Karamdiha P.S. And Tahsil Rajpur District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattigarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

2. Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, Districtsurguja, Chhattisgarh,

3. The Collector Balrampur District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh,

4. District Program Officer Women And Child Development Balrampur District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh,

5. The Project Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project Office Rajpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh,

6. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Rajpur District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

7. Smt. Durgawati Singh W/o Late Gopi Singh Aged About 33 Years Village Karamdiha P.S. And Tahsil Rajpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11.02.2021 .

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is inaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 in taking a decision on the interim application that the petitioner has preferred against the order of Collector District Balrampur- Ramanujganj dated 23.09.2020.

-22. According to the petitioner, his order of appointment dated 18.06.2018 as an anganwari worker has been set-aside by the District Collector vide order dated 23.09.2020. Against the order of Collector, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner as early as on 09.10.2020 along with an application for interim relief. However, till date the interim application has not been considered by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 6 is putting pressure for taking the charge from the petitioner pursuant to the order of District Collector. The prayer of the petitioner is for appropriate direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the application at the earliest.

3. The limited grievance of the petitioner is not opposed by the State Counsel.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondent No. 2 to ensure that his appeal along with the application for interim relief that the petitioner has filed, is considered and decided at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha