Kamlesh Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.6294 of 2016

1. Kamlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Sukhauram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Surajpura Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Tripti Sahu W/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years Working As Assistant Teacher ( Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Silhati Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18/11/2016 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a member of Panchayat Service, therefore, statutory representation is provided under Rules 18(1)(b) of Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is contended that since the matter relates to promotion, therefore, the petitioner may be given liberty to move

-2representation before the appropriate authority so that the statutory remedy, which is available to the petitioner may be exhausted.

2. The relevant Rule 18(1)(b) of Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as referred is quoted hereunder:- "18. Representation on other cases.-(1) A member of the Panchayat Service may make representation against an order which.- (a) x x x x x (b) denies promotion to a higher post or service to which is other wise eligible according to the recruitment rules and which is due to him according to seniority; or"

3. After going through the facts, it is directed that in case the petitioner makes a suitable application as per Rules 18(1)(b) of Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 along with application for condonation of delay, if so advised and places his grievances along with all the documents, in such cases, the prescribed authority may decide the same within further period of three months on the facts available before it.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities may decide the representation on its own merits.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed off. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- - (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-