High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4716/2019disposed off

Smt. Devaki Navrang v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy4 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4715 of 2019 Smt. Kamleshwari Sahu W/o Shri Rakesh Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Sahaspur Tahsil - Saja, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

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

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents AND WPS No. 4716 of 2019 Smt. Devaki Navrang W/o Shri Yuvraj Navrang Aged About 34 Years R/o Singhanpur, Post- Andhiyarkhor, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

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

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents AND WPS No. 4719 of 2019 Smt. Bhuneshwari Sahu W/o Shri Rukkam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post - Janjgiri, Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

-22. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

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

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents AND WPS No. 4727 of 2019 Nukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Balram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Parsahi, Post - Khapari, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

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

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Mr. Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/06/2019

1. Since the factual matrix of the case and the dates involved in the writ petitions all being identical, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present writ petitions is that all the petitioners before this Court were appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 29.06.2007. Having worked for a period of about 10 years the services of the petitioners were abruptly terminated vide order dated

-311.01.2017. The order of termination was inflicted upon 20 persons. Few of the persons had approached this High Court and the High Court quashed the order of termination on the ground of their being a clear violation of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The petitioners herein however had challenged the order before the statutory Appellate Authority i.e. the Collector and the Collector however rejected the appeal on 09.11.2017. The order of the Collector was later on challenged before the Revisional authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner; and the Revisional authority however vide order dated 09.05.2019 allowed the revision petition and set-aside the order of the Appellate Authority on the same ground on which the High Court had earlier quashed the order of termination dated 11.01.

2017 in respect of similarly placed persons. However, the Commissioner while allowing the revision petition remitted the matter back before the Chief Executive Officer for passing of a fresh order and also taking note of the resolution dated 12.10.2017 of the General Administration Committee of the Janpad Panchayat, Saja. The General Administration Committee of Janpad Panchayat Saja has passed a resolution on 12.10.2017 resolving withdrawal of the termination order dated 11.01.2017 in respect of all the 20 persons, but till date the same has not been implemented, so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

3. Given the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix as is revealed from the contents of the writ petition, it appears that it is a case where the few of the persons, who had come to the High Court had got the advantage of reinstatement in the light of the resolution of the General Administration Committee dated 12.10.2017 and at the same time few of the similarly placed persons have got an order of reinstatement, whereby the orders for termination has been set-aside by the High Court. However so far as the

-4petitioners are concerned, the respondents have not taken any decision so far as the General Administration Committee's resolution dated 12.10.2017, neither has the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat Saja taken any decision in the light of the decision rendered by the Revisional authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner on 09.05.2019.

4. Given the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petitions pending at this juncture, rather ends of justice would serve if the writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.3 & 4 to immediately scrutinize the claim of the petitioners and consider whether the claim of the petitioners are similar if not identical to the other persons, who have been taken back in service and who were also terminated vide the same order dated 11.01.2017 and an appropriate decision be taken within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise the respondents No.3 & 4, so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved