Vijay Kumar Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9314 of 2019 Vijay Kumar Banjare, S/o. Shri Chhedilal Banjare, Aged About 28 Years, Posted As Prahri, Sub-Jail, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General, Jail And Corrective Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri K.K.Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents :

Smt. Deepti Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 15.11.2019 Heard.

1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Prahari in Jail and he has to keep on duty, change of duty in the night shift in four hours, therefore, within the jail premises certain government quarters which are lying vacant, the petitioner applied for it; however, without giving priority to the petitioner who had applied later subsequent to petitioner they are being considered.

2. It is stated that one Pharmacist has also been accommodated, however, his nature of job do not require that he should be placed near the jail, instead the petitioner claimed that he has to keep on changing in duty in the night hours, he should be placed near the jail as in the past he was also subjected to attack by the naxalites. It is further contended that the petitioner wherein he has been placed in the jail is a sensitive area and core scheduled area, therefore, the application of the petitioner be considered as priority basis without giving any priority to others who have

filed application subsequent to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an application for allotment of government quarter in the year 2017 itself immediately after joining to the place of posting.

3. Perused the documents. Considering the submission of the petitioner that his nature of duty require to be placed nearby jail and taking into the antecedents and circumstances, the application requires active consideration. It is also obvious that if the application of the petitioner is prior to other persons who have filed the application for allotment of house then petitioner should be given priority in respect of the person who is down in the waiting list. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent No.3 shall take into account the facts that if the application of the petitioner is prior to other persons who are also in the list to get government accommodation, as per priority of the application received from the different persons, the same would be decided considering the duty rendered by the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok