← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6475/2016disposed off

Narayan Netam v. Chief Election Officer

2016-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal4 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.6474 of 2016 Abdul Kadir Khan S/o P. Mohammad Khan, Aged About 48 Years Assistant Grade- Ill ( Temporary), District Election Office, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Election Officer Indrawati Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh) AND Writ Petition (S) No.6475 of 2016 Narayan Netam, S/o Shri Narsingh Netam, aged about 43 years, (Scheduled Tribe) Peon (Temporary), District Election Office, Kanker, District Kanker (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Election Officer Indrawati Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector Cum District Election Officer, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh) AND Writ Petition (S) No.6483 of 2016 Surendra Kumar Sori, S/o Shri Shivcharan Sori, aged about 36 years, (Scheduled Tribe) Assistant Grade-III (Temporary), District Election Office, Kanker, District Kanker (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Election Officer Indrawati Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector Cum District Election Officer, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh) AND Writ Petition (S) No.6500 of 2016 Ramdayal Nishad, S/o Shri Goverdhan Nishad, aged about 43 years, Assistant Grade-III (Temporary), District Election Office, Kanker, District Kanker (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Election Officer Indrawati Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector Cum District Election Officer, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh) AND Writ Petition (S) No.6502 of 2016 Vijay Kumar Yadav, S/o Brijlal Yadav, aged about 45 years, Assistant Grade-III (Temporary), District Election Office, Kanker, District Kanker (CG).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chief Election Officer Indrawati Khand, Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector Cum District Election Officer, Kanker, District Kanker, (Chhattisgarh)

For Petitioners : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate For State : Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/11/2016 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking regularization/absorption on the ground that they are working as temporary employees on the post of A.G.-III/Peon in the Office of State Election Commission for last 7 to 13 years, they have neither been regularized nor absorbed and by the impugned orders dated 05.11.2016 & 09.11.2016 passed by the respondents No.1 & 2, the services of the petitioners will not be extended prior to 28.02.2017.

He would further submit that the State Government has time to time issued circulars with regard to absorption/regularization of temporary employees and some earlier temporary employees have been regularized/absorbed in the regular post but the case of the present petitioners have not been considered by the respondents authorities and they are entitled for consideration of their cases for regularization/absorption in terms of the circulars dated 19.09.1990, 29.11.1973, 29.11.1978 and 12.06.1980 issued by the State Government.

(2) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(3) Be that as it may, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and take decision in the case of the petitioners keeping in view the terms of circulars dated 19.09.1990, 29.11.1973, 29.11.1978 and 12.06.1980 issued by the State Government by speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order i.e. by 31.12.2016.

(4) However, the petitioners are at liberty to submit fresh representation/additional representation before the respondent No.1 for redressal of their grievances. If the grievance of the petitioners are not redressed/fully redressed, the petitioners are at liberty to revive the petition.

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities may take decision in the matter on its own merit, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-