← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5471/2016disposed off

Anand Kumar Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-10-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5471 of 2016 • Anand Kumar Minj S/o Shri Dhan Biraj Minj, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Lecturer, Panchayat, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Kansabel, R/o Village Kansabel, Block & Thana Kansabel, Revenue & Civil District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat, Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Panchayat, Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kansabel, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Dy. Advocate General ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 05/10/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Lecturer (Panchayat) since 1998, neither he has been given Kramonnati nor he has been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, he may be permitted to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. To this, counsel for the State has no objection. 2.

Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. In the eventuality of making any representation by the petitioner highlighting his grievance, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law.

4.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra