← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1691/2017disposed off

Baijnath Gurjar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-04-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1691 of 2017 • Baijnath Gurjar S/o Ramlakhan, Aged About 25 Years, Caste Gurjar, Posted At Primary School, Garjapara, Tamki, Block Odgi, Post Lanjit, Police Station Ramkola, Tahsil Odgi District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. The Collector, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

3. The District Education Officer, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

4. The Block Education Officer, Block Odgi, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

5. The Head Master, Government Primary School, Garjapara, Block Odgi, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 12/04/2017 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Part Time Sweeper in the Government Primary School, Garjapara, Village Tamki, but he is not being paid salary by respondent No.4.

2.

On going through the pleadings of the writ petition, it is manifest that though by order dated 13.02.2017 passed in WPS No.741/2017, liberty was given to the said petitioner to prefer a representation, but no representation has been filed by the present petitioner.

3.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to prefer a representation before the respondent No.4 within a month. On such representation being filed, the respondent No.4 shall look into the matter and consider the representation of the petitioner within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of representation along with copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala