Ganesh Ram Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1555 of 2019 Ganesh Ram Thakur S/o Late Dhan Singh Thakur Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sankraka, P.O. Kargbhadar, Tahsil And District - Balod Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. M. K. Yadav (Veterinary Doctor) Chief Executive Officer (In-Charge), Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/03/2019

1. The limited grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that a dispute of charge of the post of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as a Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi went on medical leave from 29.07.2017 to 27.11.2017 (i.e. for a period of about 122 days). Subsequently, the petitioner had reported back for duty and since then he is being paid the salary of the post of Chief Executive Officer regularly, but the difficulty, that the petitioner is facing is that he has not been assigned with any work and neither

-2has he been given the charge of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Marwahi, which is still being discharged by the respondent No.4.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 otherwise also is not eligible to hold the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat and moreover when the petitioner has reported back on duty and the period of absence has been treated as medical leave, the petitioner on his joining, should have been given the charge that he was holding prior to his going on medical leave.

4. Given the limited dispute that the petitioner has raised, let the petitioner, in addition to the representation that he has made till now, make a fresh representation to the respondent No.1, who in turn shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and try to redress his grievance at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the representation.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved