High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/393/2021disposed off

Smt. Jyoti Bondekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-02-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 393 of 2021

1. Smt. Jyoti Bondekar W/o Shri Mukesh Bondekar, Aged About 33 Years Post Aanganbadi Karyakarta, Ward No. 14, Sonesarar, Khairagarh Govt. Middle School, Tatenga, Block Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Town Development And Planing Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Project Officer, Women And Child Development, Department, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

4. Ku. Bhishma Kumari Bhondekar, S/o Shri Hiralal Bhondekar, Aged About 33 Years Caste Mochi Resident Of Ward No. 14 Sonesarar Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09.02.2021 .

1. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for grant of appointment from the date i.e. 01.10.2013 when the petitioner was wrongly denied the said appointment and was given to the respondent No. 4.

2. The claim of the petitioner has a chequered history and there have been many rounds of litigation before various forums including this High Court in WP(S) No. 7042/2016 and the said petition was one which was filed by the respondent No. 4.

-23. The petitioner at this juncture makes a request that the writ petition as of now may be disposed of directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment from the back date i.e. from 01.10.2013, on the date the respondent No. 4 was wrongly granted appointment which subsequently has been quashed by the SDO and which has been affirmed by all other forums up-till the Supreme Court.

4. The limited request is not opposed by the State Counsel.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to take a decision on the claim for grant of appointment from the date the respondent No. 4 was initially granted appointment on 01.10.2013 at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.d/- Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha