← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4648/2016disposed off

Smt. Mashu Ohdar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-09-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4648 of 2016

1. Smt. Mashu Ohdar W/o Shri Palish Ram Ekka Aged About 40 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher Panchayat Govt. Primary School Kanya Ashram Jatro Block Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

2. Umesh Kumar Singh, S/o Ramsunder Singh, Aged About 46 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher Panchayat Govt. Primary School Jamtand Block Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

3. Abhay Kumar Beck S/o Shri Rock Beck, Aged About 31 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher Panchayat Govt. Primary School Sonhara Block Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

4. Ku. Asunta Beck D/o Shri Marshal Beck, Aged About 33 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher Panchayat Govt. Primary School Pradhanpara Sankul Pasta Block Balrampur Distirct Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Pancahyat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

4. Block Education Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board

09/09/2016 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