High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2766/2019disposed off

Bhagwan Das Purain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-04-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2766 of 2019

1. Bhagwan Das Purain S/o Shri Maya Ram Purain Aged About 55 Years Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. Higher Secondary School Ulkhar, TahsilSarangarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

2. Fakira Yadav S/o Jeevanlal Yadav Aged About 43 Years Teacher 9 9panchayat) (Physical), Govt. Higher Secondary School Ulkhar, TahsilSarangarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. Sansodhan Minj S/o Shri Khristo Giri Minj Aged About 54 Years Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. Higher Secondary School Manora, Disrtict- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Raigarh, Disrtict- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

5. The Collector Jashpur District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

6. District Education Officer Jashpur, Disrtict- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

7. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Astha Shukla, PL

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/04/2019

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(timebound 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/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit