Smt. Basanti Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3790 of 2021

1. Smt. Basanti Bai Wd/o - Ramji Patil Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bharchhatti, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

5. District Program Office Women And Child Development Department Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

6. Project Officer Integrated Women And Child Development Project Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

7. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bharchhatti, Block Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri F.S Khare, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Smt. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26.07.2021 .

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Worker for the Angan Badi Centre at Bharchhatti under Gram Panchayat Bharchhatti, Block Berla, District Bemetara.

2. Facts in brief is that in the year, 2006 the process for filling up of the post of Angan Badi Worker was initiated for Angan Badi Centre, Bharchhatti within block Berla, District Bemerata. The Gram Panchayat had after processing the claims of the applicants who had applied, recommended the appointment of the petitioner for the said post. Ignoring the said, the respondent No.4 issued an order of appointment in favour of one Kunti

-2Bai. The petitioner immediately challenged the appointment of Kunti Bai in an Appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, allowing the appeal vide order dated 25.02.2010 quashed the appointment of Kunti Bai, thereby the petitioner became eligible for appointment. The order of Additional Collector was subsequently put to test by Kunti Bai by way of a Revision before the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner also vide order dated 28.08.2010 dismissed the revision petition. Rejection of revision petition led to the filing of the writ petition by Kunti Bai before the High Court vide WP (227) No.5076 of 2010. The High Court also vide order dated 07.12.2020 dismissed the writ petition thereby affirming the order of the Additional Collector which was confirmed by the Commissioner.

3. The grievance now is that though more than six months have lapsed the High Court having affirmed the order of Additional Collector and the Commissioner, but the respondents No.2 to 4 have till date not complied with the said order.

4. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents No.2 to 4 to take immediate steps in ensuring the compliance of the order of the Additional Collector which stands affirmed by the Commissioner and also by the High Court, and pass an appropriate order at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder