Manoj Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2555 of 2018
1. Manoj Yadav S/o Late Sudhan Yadav age about 41 years, working as Watchman at Middle School Hostel Shrokot, P.S. & Tahsil - Bagicha, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Secretary of Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Secretary of Sanatan Sant Samaj Gahira Guru Head Office Samarbar, Post- Durgapara, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Director of the Education Department Mantralaya Capital Complex Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioner :
Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate.
For respondent-State :
Shri Manish Nigam,P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 23.03.2018.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submits that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Narayan Shrivastava & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others (WP No. 56 of 2000) decided on 12th April, 2007. He would submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in the same terms.
2. Learned State counsel would submits that the petitioners may submit a representation and the competent authority will examine the issue and if their case is similar to Narayan Shrivastava (Supra), and the said order is still intact, his case may be considered in accordance
with law.
3. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioners prefer representations before the competent authority seeking relief on the ground of parity with the case of Narayan Shrivastava (Supra) within a period of one month from today, the competent authority shall remain the matter and decide the representation by speaking order ea early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation. In the event the competent authority decides the representation against the petitioner he would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court. Sd/- (P.Sam Koshy) Judge pawan