Sabha Ram Nishad v. State Of C.G. And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.

of 20 0 5 Gulzar Khan, S/o Late Sajjad Khan, Aged about 59 years, R/o Ward No.9, Stationpara, near over bridge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur

2. Superintendent Engineer,Public Works Department, Office of Superintendent Engineer, Circle- Durg, District durg (C.G.)

3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (B/R), Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

4. The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ---- Respondents Writ Petition (S) No.

of 20 Motiram Dewangan, S/o Shri Hariram, age 59 years, working under S.D.O., Kodar Project, Head Work, Water Resources Department Sub Division, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary (WRD), Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan - Raipur (C.G.)

2. Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

3. Joint Director, Treasury and Account, Directorate, Raipur ---- Respondents Writ Petition (S) No.

of 20 1 0 Sabha Ram Nishad, S/o Late Dhirjiram Nishad, Aged about 59 years , R/o Patan Ward No. 15, Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur

2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Office of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners:

Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.

For Respondent/State:

Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board / 11 /201 (1) Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. (2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioners' representations for grant of pay scale at par for the regular time keepers have been rejected by order dated 16.08.2005 merely on the basis of office note submitted by the Department of Finance and no specific reason has been assigned for rejection of their representation. (3) Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioners will file fresh representation for redressal of their grievances, that will be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously.

(4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. (5) Be that as it may, if the petitioners will file fresh representation before the State Government for re-consideration of the order dated 16.08.

shall consider and decide the same by passing speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

(6) With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-