Yogesh Kumar Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3471 of 2018 Yogesh Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Sada Ram Kashyap, Aged About 43 Years, Computer Operator, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Uchchabhatthi, Head Quarter- Bhadi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Bhadi, Post Beltara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block 2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

6. The District Marketing Officer, District Marketing Federation Limited Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

7. Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Uchchabhatthi (Registration No. 2621), Head Quarter- Bhadi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Through The President, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Uchchabhatthi (Registration No. 2621), Head Quarter- Bhadi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

8. The Society Manager, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Uchchabhatthi (Registration No. 2621), Head Quarter- Bhadi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

02/05/2018 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that for the period that he was out of employment by virtue of the oral termination order which ultimately stood quashed by the Deputy Registrar on 29/06/2016 and the order of the Deputy Registrar having been affirmed in an appeal by the Registrar vide order dated 04/03/2017, he has been taken back in employment but has been denied the back wages and consequential benefits for the intervening period.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that even on reinstatement, he has not been granted the post on which he was working prior to his illegal termination.

3.

Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the petitioner is permitted to file a detail representation in this regard before the respondent No.3 who in turn shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate direction to the respondents No. 7 & 8 redressing the grievance of the petitioner. 4.

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner file a detailed representation to the respondent No.3 within a period of 10 days from today, who in turn shall pass an order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. 5.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE