High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/285/2017disposed off

Kumari Chaya Kanthale v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.285 of 2017 Kumari Chaya Kanthale D/o Lateluram, Aged About 29 Years R/o College Para Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Aadim Jati & Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Civil/ Revenue Distt Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Commissioner, Department Of Aadim Jati & Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Chhattisgarh, Distt Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Collector, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Asst. Commissioner, Department Of Aadim Jati & Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Chhattisgarh, Distt Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State : Shri Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/01/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Peon on monthly basis at collector rate in Hostel and she is entitled for grant of pay scale as per circular dated 04th November, 2016 issued by respondent No.1/State Government and therefore, she may be permitted to file representation before respondent No.3 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur for redressal of her

grievances and direction may be issued to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(4) In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to file representation before respondent No.3 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. If such representation is made by the petitioners within 15 days from today, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 04th November, 2016 preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with representations of the petitioner.

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. (6) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stand finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge L/-