Dayaram Shori v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.

1. Dayaram Shori, son of Shri Lachhuram Shori, aged about 31 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. Primary School, Maaripara Themgaon, resident of Village Maaripara, Themgaon, Block & Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

2. Mangalram Netam, son of Shri Sadhuram Netam Shori, aged about 51 years, Occupation Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. Primary School Nayapara, Kosahardulee, resident of Village Nayapara, Kosahardulli, Block & Police Station Makdi, Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.)

3. Madhoram Markam, son of Shri Malsai Markam, aged 31 years, occupation Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Govt. High School, Balod, resident of Village Balod, Block & Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ---- Petitioners

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through :-

1. Through the Secretary, Panchayat Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director, Panchayat Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

5. Collector, Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaon (C.G.)

6. District Education Officer, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Mrs. Astha Shukla, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board 2 5 / 1 0/201 Heard on admission.

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) since last many years, neither they have been given Kramonnati nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, they may be permitted to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances. This this, counsel for the State has no objection. (2) Prayer appears to fair and reasonable.

(3) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. In the eventuality of making any representation by the petitioners highlighting their grievances, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. (4) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-