Savita Kaushik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2975 of 2021 Savita Kaushik D/o Shri Chhedilal Mansagar Aged About 37 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Science L.B.), Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chantidih, Block Bilha, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) R/o R/o House No. 27, Mopka Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.

Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3.

Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat , Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4.

Block Education Officer Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/07/2021 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

By this Writ Petition the petitioner is claiming Kramonnati. According to the petitioner, he has already completed 10 years of service and was entitled for the benefit of kramonnati.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has also filed representations before the respondents authorities, but the same are not being considered.

4.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the State would submit that if the petitioner submits a fresh representations along with copy of the petition

before the concerned competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed off. If the petitioner files afresh representation before the concerned competent authority along with copy of the petition within a period of one month from today, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representations along with copy of this order.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representations, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved