Smt. Savitri Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4057 of 2021 Smt. Savitri Singh W/o Shri Bhan Singh, Aged About 56 Years Working As Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Nandeli, Block Pamgarh, R/o Village Bhaiso, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs.

Swati Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 1, 2 & 4:

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.08.2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition the petitioner is claiming Kramonnati. According to the petitioner, she has already completed 10 years of service and is entitled for the benefit of kramonnati.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner has

also filed representations before the respondents authorities, but the same are not being considered.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for State would submit that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation along with copy of the petition before the concerned competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed off. If the petitioner files a fresh representation before the concerned competent authority along with copy of the petition within a period of one month from today, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with copy of this order.

6. 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 representation, 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/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai