High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7359/2019disposed off

Abdul Majid v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-09-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7359 of 2019 Abdul Majid S/o Chhotan Khan Aged About 60 Years R/o Podidalha, Police Station Akaltara, District - Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Society, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

3. Branch Manager District Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Akaltara, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. The President Seva Sahkari Samiti Pondi, Police Station Akaltara, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Registration No. 504, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State :

Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16/09/2019

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the representation which the petitioner has made pursuant to the judgment of acquittal in his favour issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara in Criminal Case No. 332/2011, decided on 28.09.2017.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner was orally terminated in the year 1994 by the respondent No.4 only because of the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case. That, now pursuant to the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner should had been reconsidered for being treated as in continuous employment and he should have been granted all the consequential benefits.

3. Given the limited relief that the petitioner has, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the representation which the petitioner has made to the respondent No.4 be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4. The petitioner would also be at liberty to make a fresh representation in respect of his grievance to the respondent No.4.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved