Annu Kumar Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4520 OF 2020 1.

Annu Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Gendlal Aged About 50 Years Occupation Class-4/ Peon Govt. Pri-Matric Aadiwashi Balak Chatrawash Niwaskhar R/o Village Niwaskhar Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2.

Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Gorelal Jaiswal, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Class-4/ Rasoiya Karmi Govt. Pri-Matric Aadiwashi Balak Chatrawash Dindouri R/o Village Dindouri Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3.

Vipin Kumar Bhaskar S/o Late Shri Laxmi Prasad Aged About 28 Years Occupation Class-4/ Chowkidar Karmi Govt. Pri-Matric Aadiwashi Balak Chatrawash Niwaskhar R/o Village Niwaskhar Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (CG) 4.

Suman Kumar Dhruw S/o Shri Hagruram Aged About 33 Years Occupation Class-4/ Rashoiya Karmi Govt. Anusuchit Janjati Balak Chatrawash Mungeli R/o Village Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5.

Gangaram Patre S/o Shri Bachanram Patre Aged About 44 Years Occupation Class-4/ Rashoiya Karmi Govt. Pri-Matric Anusuchit Jati Balak Chatrawash Mungeli R/o Village Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli (CG) 6.

Ranjit Kumar S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Aged About 38 Years Occupation Class-4/ Jalwahak Karmi Govt. Aadiwashi Kanya Ashram Mungeli R/o Village Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Aadim Jati And Anusuchit Jati Vikash Vibhag, Mantralay Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.

Commissioner Aadim Jati And Anusuchit Jati Vikash Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.

Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwashi Vikash Mungeli District Mungeli (CG) 4.

Collector, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board /11/2020 1.

The Petitioners through the present Writ Petition seek for a direction to the Respondents to take decision on the claim of the Petitioners for placing their services as contingency paid employees.

2.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the respective Petitioners are working with the Respondents since 2006, 2007 & 2009. The Petitioners meanwhile had moved an application before the Respondents for considering their claim for placing them as contingency paid employee taking into consideration the past services of the Petitioners rendered with the Respondents.

3.

Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have already made detailed representations before the authorities concerned which are pending consideration and have till now not been decided by the Respondents Authorities. Therefore, a limited direction may be issued to Respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision on the claim of the Petitioners to consider their matter for being placed as contingency paid employee. 4.

Learned State Counsel has no objection if the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.3 for considering the representation of the Petitioners.

5.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the representation made by the Petitioners and take decision on the claim of the Petitioners in accordance with the rules governing the field.

6.

It is expected that Respondent No.3 shall take a decision on the claim of the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 90 days from today.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE