Ku. Seema Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1073 of 2019 Ku. Seema Patel D/o Dileshwar Patel Aged About 26 Years Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) At Govt. Higher Secondary School Barra, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Govind Dewagan, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Saleem Kazi, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 18/02/2019 1.

Defaults pointed out by the Registry for the moment stands ignored and the matter is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2.

The grievance of the petitioner is non counting of her past service rendered prior to joining of present employment. 3.

The contention of the petitioner is that the matter stands covered by the decision of this court rendered in WPS No.2530 of 2017 (Mukesh Kumar Patel and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) as also the batch of writ petitions disposed of by this Court on 27.10.2018, the lead

case of which being WPS No.6147 of 2018 (Shabnum Khatun Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other analogous petitions. 4.

The counsel appearing for the respondents submit that probably the petitioner as of now does not have minimum required length of service for grant of benefit that she has claimed for which otherwise has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.

5.

Given the facts, the writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that the petitioner on her completing the required length of service of 8 years shall approach the authorities in the department for the relief sought for and the authorities shall consider the same in the light of the decision rendered by this court in the case of similarly placed persons and shall pass an appropriate order.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE jyotij