Smt. Chandrakala Banjare v. State Ot Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5087 of 2021

1. Smt. Chandrakala Banjare W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Banjare, Aged About 35 Years, Occupation House Keeping Staff / Swachhak, Resident Gram Tiwaripara Kharod, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

2. Shrimati Rupa Diwakar W/o Shri Shankarlal Diwakar, Aged About 34 Years, Occupation House Keeping Staff / Swachhak, Resident Gram Tiwaripara Kharod, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

3. Kumari Lalita Barman D/o Shri Dullu, Aged About 33 Years, Occupation House Keeping Staff / Swachhak, Resident Gram Mulmula, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

4. Shrimati Aarti Khute W/o Shri Aakshay Khute, Aged About 36 Years Occupation House Keeping Staff / Swachhak, Resident Gram Kurda Tahsil Maalkharod, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sanchalak, Sanchanalay Swasth Sewaye Raipur, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Finance Controller, Sanchanalay Swasth Seway Raipur, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Block Medical Officer, Samudaiyak Swasth Kendra, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. Block Medical Officer, Samudaiyaik Swasth Kendra, Maalkharoda District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioners :

Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 21.09.2021

1. The limited grievance that the petitioners have in the instant case is the action on the part of the petitioners in discontinuing the services of petitioners.

2. According to the counsel for petitioners, they were all working as daily wage employee under the respondents and suddenly, the services of the petitioners were discontinued.

3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instruction to state that there is availability of work in the department and they are also in need of daily wage employees, however, ignoring the claim of petitioners for said work they are appointing third persons against the said post.

4. The only prayer that the petitioners make at this juncture is that, if at all, if the respondents intend to engage daily wage workers, let the petitioners be given some preferential right and to be continued instead of appointing fresh personnel. The respondents be directed to take work from the petitioners considering their experience and the length of service rendered by them.

5. Given the said grievance that the petitioners have, the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to look into the grievance of petitioners and try to redress the same as far as possible by reengaging the petitioners, if at all if the State or the

respondents intend to get work from the daily wage workers. Under such circumstances, the petitioners be given due weightage for the services that they have already rendered in the past.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- 1.

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai