Tanzeem Begum v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
3ingm eench THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.
(S) No.
wré& [2011 Qinzeem BegTiEE TAN Z EEM gEQ') M PETITIONER W/Q. Shri Khmiluddin Khan Aged about 5'6 years, Training Officer, Women I.T.l., Korba, R/o.
H-lO, I.'I',I.
Colony, Korba .
:W w J .
(C.(}.) éy'cx'
kt
VERSUS
.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through:
Secretary) Technical Education, Man Power Planning;
Scioncc Technolog DCpartmcnt, D.K.Si Bhawan, Raipur (C.Gi) Director, Directorate of [\3 Employment Training, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Regional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) Superin tendent, Women Industrial 'I'raining Institute, Korba (C.G.) Manju Patel, W/o.
Shri Himanchal Patel, aged éibout years, Occupation - Training Officer Grade-III, Women I.T.I w Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:
As given above in the cause title M
IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench:-Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Writ Petition (S) No. 2269 of 2012 Petitioner Tanzeem Gegum
VERSUS
Respondents State of Chhattisgarh others Present:- Ms. Naushina Ali, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adil Minhaj, PL for respondents.
Oral Order
(21. 01. 2015) "4* Heard on LA.
No.
1which is an application for amendment.
2.
On due consideration, the said LA. No.
1 is allowed.
3.
The petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendments during the course of the day itself. 4.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the instant writ petition already stands decided vide impugned judgment dated 23.1 1.2009 passed by this Court in WP. S No. 2442/2009.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said judgment of this Court has already given effect to the petitioner therein and the respondents in other identically placed petitions have also been granted the same relief and as such nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the instant writ petition and the same can be disposed of in the light of the order dated
23. 1 1.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2442/09.
6.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 5.8.2013 as well as order dated 14.08.2013 issued by the respondent No.
similar orders have already been granted which would establish that the case of the petitioner is also similar to the identically placed persons as that of the employees referred in the above two orders.
7.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the instant writ petition may also be disposed of with a direction to the
State's Government to consider the case of the petitioner also as has been done in the case of the petitioner in W.P.
(S) No.
2442/09 and other similarly placed persons Who are identically placed as the present petitioner.
8.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, in the event, if the respondents found that the case of the petitioner is similar to and identically placed then she may be given the benefit of seniority time scale pay as has been granted to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.
2442/09 other similarly places persons.
9.
Counsel for the respondent on the said submission made by the petitioner submits that he does not have any objection in this regard.
HdWever, he prays that the respondent may have the liberty to reject the claim of the petitioner in the event if the respondents find that the status of the petitioner is not similar or identical and the respondents shall pass a speaking order While rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the event if the respondents find the petitioner is not identically and similarly placed as that of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2442/09. 10'
With the aforesaid understanding, the instant writ petition is being disposed of at this juncture, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P.
(S) No. 2442/09 on
23. 1 1 .2009.
11.
In the event, if the petitioner is identically placed like that of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2442/O9, the same benefit to be extended to the petitioner Within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order or else the claim of the petitioner to be rejected by a speaking order to be also passed within four months time.
12.
With the aforesaid reasons the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Santash