Shukul Prasad Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1505 of 2017

1. Shukul Prasad Manikpuri Late Shri Bhurva Ram Manikpuri Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhugra, Ward No. 6, Post Katgodi, Police Station Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

2. Darogee Ram Rajwade, S/o Late Shri Lal Sai Rajwade, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Katgodi, Police Station Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

3. Ram Prasad Singh, S/o Late Shri Banthu Singh, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Mahoura, Police Station Patna, Tahsil And District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Office Of Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Ballav Bhawan, Near Ghadi Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Deputy Director, Office Of Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

4. Chief Executive Officer ( C. E. O. ), Zila Panchayat, Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

5. Chief Executive Officer ( C. E. O. ),. Janpad Panchayat, Sonhat District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

6. Chief Executive Officer ( C. E. O. ) Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri SP Kale, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 29/03/2017

1. Petitioners are claiming to be appointed and working as Multipurpose Rehabilitation Workers in the Zila Panchayat, Korea, Baikunthpur, having been appointed on the post in the year 2003 on contract basis on monthly honorarium of Rs.400/- and fix Traveling Allowance of Rs.100 per month.

2. Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the State Government has issued an order on 30.08.2013 under approval from the finance department increasing the amount of monthly honorarium to Rs.3000/-, yet the petitioners are not paid the said increased amount of honorarium despite several representations. He would submit that in the present price index it has become difficult for the petitioners to manage both the ends and live a decent life on meager amount of Rs.500/-.

3. Shri Kale, learned Dy. AG would submit that the representation has been preferred by the association and not by the petitioners. He would further submit that the representation has been served upon the Directorate of Social Welfare on 09.02.2017, as such the petitioners have rushed to this Court without giving reasonable time to the department to consider the representation.

4. On due consideration and in the facts situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition rather than keeping it pending because the State Government has already issued an order on 30.08.2013 and the representation filed by the association is still pending consideration. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event petitioners prefer fresh representation before the competent authority within one month raising their grievance concerning increase of monthly honorarium, the competent authority shall decide the same by a speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu