Mehbub Khan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3246 of 2021 1.

Mehbub Khan S/o Mr. Mohammad Khan Aged About 33 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Shitlapara, Kanker, Block Kanker Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

2.

Parvin Siddiqui D/o Mr. Mohammad Nisar Siddiqui Aged About 54 Years Post Physical Education Teacher (L.B.), Posted At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Kanker Block Kanker Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

3.

Umesh Kumar Dahariya S/o Late Mr. Raju Ram Dahariya Aged About 37 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Lattipara, Kanker Block Kanker Distt, Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 4.

Rajesh Thakur S/o Mr. Harishanker Thakur Aged About 39 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Tikrapara, Kanker Block Kanker Distt, Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2.

Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3.

Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4.

District Education Officer District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5.

Nagar Palika Parishad Kanker, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

05/07/2021 1.

The grievance of the petitioners is the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not absorbing the service of the Petitioners into the Education Department as per circular dated 30.06.2018. According to the Petitioners, they have been appointed on 27.12.2007, 08.02.2008 & 07.09.2006 as such they completed eight years of continuous service on 30.06.2018 that is before the State Government took a decision on 30.06.2018, as such there is no reason why the Petitioners should be left from absorption. 2.

Given the limited contention of the Petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending rather ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 2 to 5 to take an appropriate decision so far as absorption of the Petitioners into the Education Department is concerned at the earliest within a period of 60 days.

3.

The Respondents No. 2 to 5 shall be at liberty to take a decision in accordance within the policy of the State Government governing the field of absorption.

4.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved