← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2395/2016disposed off

Smt. Jubeda Khatun v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2395 of 2016

1. Smt. Jubeda Khatun W/o Shri Mo. Hashim Ansari, Aged About 36 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher Panchayat, Primary School Mahuadih, R/o Village Mahuadih, Block & Thana Shankargarh, Revenue & Civil District Balrampur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Sunil Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Devesh Pandey, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher Panchayat, Primary School, Madholongra, R/o Village Madholongra, Block and Thana Shankargarh, Revenue and Civil District Balrampur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat, Gramin Vikas Avm Shram Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Panchayat, Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, District Balrampur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Collector, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Block Education Officer, Shankargarh, District Balrampur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, counsel for the petitioner/s. Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 28/06/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) since 2005, neither they have been given Kramonnati nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, they may be permitted to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances. To this, counsel for the State has no objection.

2.

Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. In the eventuality of making any representation by the petitioners highlighting their grievances, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. 4.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha