Jagriti Vaishnav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 649 of 2019 Jagriti Vaishnav D/o Shri Upendra Das Vaishnav Aged About 27 Years Occupation Teacher (Panchayat) Goverment Higher Secondary School Ulkhar, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh R/o Village Godhkhmhi ,tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Deparment Of Panchayat And Rural Development New Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

3. The Upper Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

6. Block Education Officer, Block Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate.

For Respondents-State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 31.01.2019

1. The present is a second round of litigation. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) (Engilish). The petitioner was terminated vide order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.4.

2. Against the said order of termination initially the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPS No.2284 of 2018. This court vide order dated 13.07.2018 disposed of the said writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Commissioner against the order of termination. The Commissioner thereafter has now passed an

order dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P/5) thereby the Commissioner has allowed the revision of the petitioner and has set aside the order of respondent No.4 dated 22.02.2018.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner on 10.10.2018, but the respondent No.4 till date has not implemented the said order and the petitioner till date also has not been reinstated in service. The present writ petition has therefore been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent No.4 to comply with the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner in this regard has also made a representation on 07.12.2018 which also till date lies pending.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending, rather ends of justice would be served if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to take decision at the earliest on the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 10.10.2018. Let this exercise be completed by the respondent No.4 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

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