High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2466/2017dismissed

Smt. P. Grihlaxmi Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-06-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2466 of 2017 • Smt. P. Grihlaxmi Yadav Widow Of Late Satya Rao Yadav Aged About 61 Years ( D/o Late P. Arraiya), R/o Ward No. 4, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur , ( Chhattisgarh). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District : Raipur, ( Chhattisgarh).

2. District Women & Child Development Officer, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District: Bilaspur, ( Chhattisgarh).

3. District Programme Officer, Women & Child Development, District Centre - Bilaspur, Collectorate Bilaspur, Tahsil & District : Bilaspur, ( Chhattisgarh).

4. Programme/ Project Officer, Development Of Women & Child In Rural Areas, District Centre - Bilaspur, Collectorate Bilaspur, Tahsil & District: Bilaspur, ( Chhattisgarh).

5. Smt. Usha Soni, W/o Manish Soni, Maid, Child Protection Home, Nootan Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District : Bilaspur, ( Chhattisgarh).

6. Smt. Asha Shinde, W/o Govind Ram Shinde, Maid, Child Protection Home, Janjgeer, District: Janjgeer- Champa, ( Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Suryapratap Yuddhaveer Singh, Advocate For State : Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Order On Board 19/06/2017

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to consider her case for regularization in service.

3. Number of grounds have been urged in the petition including the ground that persons similarly situated have been regularized. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition

seeking similar relief, which was dismissed. Thereafter writ appeal was filed, that too was also dismissed. The petitioner has also disclosed that he had filed review petition, which was also dismissed without giving any relief. Thereafter, a fresh petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and barred by principles of resjudicata.

4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Kamde