← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4607/2016disposed off

Smt. Hemlata Thawait v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-09-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4607 of 2016 Smt. Hemlata Thawait W/o Dileep Kumar Aged About 38 Years OccupationSahayak Shikshak Panchayat, Primary School, Madhopali, R/o GramMadhopali, Block And Tahsil- Basna, Thana- Saraipali, Revenue And Civil District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat, Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Sanchalak, Panchayat Sanchalnalaya, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Mukhya Karyapalan Adhilkari, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund Chhattisgarh.

4. Mukhya Karyapalan Adhilkari, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

5. Collector, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

6. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Order on Board 08/09/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) since 2005, neither she has been given Kramonnati nor she has been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, she may be permitted to file representation

before the competent authority for redressal of her 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 petitioner highlighting her 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/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tiwari