High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3391/2017disposed off

Gokul Ram Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-07-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3391 of 2017 Gokul Ram Thakur S/o Shri Balduram Thakur, Aged About 48 Years Posted At Government Of Pre Metric S T Boys Hostel Arakar District Balod R/o Village Mohalai Post Baghara Post P. S. Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare & Development, Mantrayala, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare & Development, Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare & Development, Department Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, ( Tribal Welfare & Development ), Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

5. District Coordinator, Tribal Welfare & Development, Department Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

...Respondents

For Petitioner :

Mr. B.P. Banjare, Advocate For State-respondent :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 27/07/2017 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is similar to Smt. Vipti Bai and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, who filed petition being Writ Petition (S) No.1138/2016 before this Court, in which, the order was passed on 18.4.2016 with a direction to consider their grievance by making detailed representation.

2. A perusal of the order dated 18.4.2016 shows that the Court recorded that petitioners may approach the respondents raising claim for equal pay for equal work and in view of the statement made by State counsel, petition was disposed off with a direction to consider the representations of the petitioners without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

3. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court directly and has not made any representation. Therefore in these circumstances, all that can be done is to direct that if the petitioner makes representation to the authorities claiming parity with those petitioners in whose favour order has been passed in WPS No.1138/2016 (Smt. Vipti Bai and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), claim of the petitioner shall also be examined in accordance with law and in light of decision rendered in Smt. Vipti Bai (supra).

4. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha