High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6016/2021disposed off

Tejram Kaiwartya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-10-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) NO.6016 of 2021 Tejram Kaiwartya S/o Late Shri Gokul Kaiwartya, aged about 61 years, Posted as Assistant Grade-III (Receipt Section), R/o. Prabhat Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur (CG) ----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Zila Panchayat Office, Bilaspur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 27/10/2021

1. Heard Mr.Animesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents / State on the question of admission of this writ petition.

2. Mr.Animesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that this is second round of litigation and earlier order passed by this Court on 30.6.2021 in WPS No.3067 of 2021 has not been complied with by the respondents and they have not taken any steps for revoking the order of suspension, for which the petitioner may be allowed to make a representation as period of 90 days has already been expired and there is no further

suspension in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr.1.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State, would submit that the petitioner's representation qua revocation of suspension will be considered and decided expeditiously.

4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is suffering from suspension w.e.f. 2.3.2021, he is allowed to make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 would do well to consider and decide the same in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) within further six weeks from its receipt and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear this this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

5. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/- 1 (2015) 7 SCC 291