Phoolo Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3106 of 2019 Phoolo Bai W/o Ghasiram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Palari Police Station Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Mahila And Bal Vikas Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Police Station Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Collector Office Of Collector Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

4. District Program Officer Mahila And Bal Vikas Department Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

5. Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 29/04/2019

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in service pursuant to the acquittal of the petitioner from a criminal Court.

2. According to the petitioner she was appointed as Aanganbadi Worker at the Aanganbadi Centre Chilputi, Devbobra under Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, District Bastar.

3. According to the petitioner her services were discontinued vide Annexure P-2 dated 03/09/2008 on account of petitioner getting involved in a criminal case and for which the petitioner was also put in jail for some period. The petitioner now has approached this Court on the ground that since the criminal case initiated against her resulted in her acquittal. After her acquittal, she has approached the respondents for considering grant of appointment to the petitioner but till date her request has not been considered or decided by the respondent authorities.

4. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the correspondence made by the respondent No. 5 the Project officer who had forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 and thereafter there is no further progress in the said case.

5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending by admitting the same rather ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to 4 to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in the light of the judgment of acquittal that she has in her favour.

6. Let the respondent No. 2 to 4 take a decision on the claim of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit