Dilip Kumar Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5446 of 2019

1. Dilip Kumar Thakur, S/o Ramdhan Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Sarbhoka, Block: Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

2. Shyamlal Kurre, S/o Sudershan Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Ranai Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Pachayat And Rural Development, Mahanadai Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Baikunthpur Collectors Office Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26.09.2019

1. Grievance of the petitioners is that, they were appointed as Shikshakarmis vide Annexure P/1 (filed collectively) along with number of other persons including those whose names find place in the document Annexure P/3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, after about 2 years of service, the petitioners service were terminated by an oral order

-2along with other persons. Some of the persons filed writ petition before this Court and hereafter, their representations were considered and they have been given appointment vide order dated 20.9.2013, 8.10.2015 and 28.02.2019. He submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served, if at this stage the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file representation before Respondent No. 3 for similar relief. However, he prays for direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of order dated 20.09.2013 passed in favour of five other similarly situated persons. He further submits that, some time limit may also be fixed for Respondent No. 3 to pass order.

3. State counsel has no objection, if any such direction is issued to Respondent No. 3. He, however, submits that the petitioners' case would be considered strictly in accordance with law subject to their suitability.

4. In view of above, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuality of filing fresh representation along with copy of this order by the petitioners before Respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today, it is expected from Respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law keeping in view the order dated 20.9.2013, 08.10.2015 & 28.02.2019 (Annexure P/3 Colly) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

5. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the competent authority shall

-3be at liberty to decide representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul