← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7000/2018disposed off

Shyam Bai Kanwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7000 of 2018 Shyam Bai Kanwar Wd/o Late Shri Ram Singh Kanwar, aged about 38 years, R/o village Navalpur, through Champa Kartala Kothari, District Korba (C.G.).

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).

---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Sanjay Pathak, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 25/10/2018 1.

The petitioner through the present petition seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner so far as non considering the name of the Husband of the petitioner for absorption as the order of absorption has already been passed by the respondents on 30.06.2018 whereby the persons who were appointed along with the Husband of the petitioner have been absorbed in service. 2.

Perusal of records would show that the Husband of the petitioner had expired on 18.01.2018 and by that time the order of absorption had not been published. Any order which has been published by the respondents

subsequently and on the date of absorption since the Husband of the petitioner was not alive, the question of absorption of the services of the Husband of the petitioner could not have been passed by the respondents. Thus, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents in not reflecting the name of the Husband of the petitioner in the order of absorption.

3.

The claim so raised for by the petitioner is too hypothetical a case which under the service jurisprudence cannot be entertained. 4.

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE