Yogesh Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1947 of 2016

1. Yogesh Sahu S/o Shri Ved Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Mandal Chowk, Dongargarh Road, Village Post Lal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

2. Lekharam Dewangan, S/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Shital Mandir, Ward No. 9, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Zila Panchayat, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajannadgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

3. Nagar Panchayat Chhuriya, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State :

Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 15/06/2016

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved on account of inaction on the part of respondent No.2, who has not taken any decision pursuant to option submitted by the petitioners expressing their willingness to continue in service within the Jila Panchayat.

3. The State Govt. has promulgated a policy on 9.8.2013 (Annexure P-5) which clearly shows that in case an option is submitted, appropriate steps for posting has to be taken on the basis of option and the decision that may be taken by the

-2General Administration Committee of the Jila Panchayat. In view of the above, respondent No.2 was duty bound to consider and take appropriate decision on option submitted by the petitioners. However, even though such option has been submitted by the petitioners, decision has not been taken till date. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, guilty of inaction. The authority of the State is obliged to take decision and act in accordance with its policy taking into consideration the option of the petitioners. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order with regard to posting of the petitioners in view of the option submitted by them, as per the circular of the State Govt. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not issued any direction to pass order of posting in a particular manner.

Respondent No.2 should consider petitioners' option as per the State Policy and take decision within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It goes without saying that in case petitioners are not satisfied or grievance continues, they would have liberty to take appropriate remedy.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/--- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen