Smt. Manju Chaturvedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5208 of 2019 Smt. Manju Chaturvedi W/o Late Shri Ravindra Kumar Chaturvedi, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Near Sankatmochan Hanuman Mandir, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Woman And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - I, 2nd Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Programme Officer, Department Of Woman And Child Development, Office Of District Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 17/07/2019

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner has raised in the instant petition is that the Department has till date not released the benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the petitioner neither has the petitioner been granted promotion which has been extended to the juniors of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she has also not been granted the annual increment that she is entitled for the last 5 years.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that on an earlier occasion she was placed under suspension on 26.07.2014 contemplating departmental enquiry. However, subsequently the suspension order was revoked on 08.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has till date not been subjected to any departmental enquiry inasmuch as no show cause notice, even a charge sheet, has not been issued for the alleged misconduct. Meanwhile, the petitioner has been denied the promotion and also the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission recommendation in the garb of the petitioner being placed under suspension on an earlier occasion.

3. Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has raised, this Court is of the opinion that unless there is a departmental enquiry pending or the petitioner is inflicted with an order of punishment, the petitioner could not have been denied any of the claims that she has raised.

4. Let the petitioner make a detailed representation to the respondents 2 & 3 in addition to the representation that she has already made, within a period of 15 days from today and the respondents 2 & 3 are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from today.

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