← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/710/2016dismissed

Balmiki Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-03-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.710 of 2016

1. Balmiki Pandey, son of late Shiv Ratan Pandey, aged about 70 years.

2. Smt. Kamla Pandey, wife of Shri Balmiki Pandey, aged about 65 years.

Both are resident of Village Pachira, P.S., Tahsil and District Surajpur (CG).

3. Smt. Jyoti Sharma, aged about 27 years, D/o Shri Ramesh Pandey, wife of Shri Arun Sharma, R/o Village and Post Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (CG).

4. Smt. Dipti Sharma, wife of Shri Mukesh Sharma, aged about 24 years, D/o late Ramesh Pandey, R/o Village Kaluwa (Krishnapur), Post, Tahsil and District Surajpur (CG). ---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

2.

Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

3.

Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Circle, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG).

4.

Smt. Sushila Pandey, aged about 42 years, alleged wife of late Ramesh Pandey, Peon, Range Office Forest Circle Balrampur, District Balrampur (CG), R/o Chando Mod infront of Hanuman Temple, Forest Colony, Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj (CG). ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11/03/2016 (1) Heard.

(2) Compassionate appointment has been granted to the respondent No.4 by the State Government on 10.03.2014. On 03.03.2016, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said appointment of respondent No.4 and even other service benefits have also been given to respondent No.4 and in para7 of the writ petition, it has been clearly mentioned that there is no delay in filing instant writ petition.

(3) The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the instant petition. However, the petitioners are free to proceed against the respondent No.4. Dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay will not debar the petitioner to make claim for dues, if any, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-