Imakul Lata Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7811 of 2018 Imakul Lata Minj W/o Shri Prabhat Kujur, Aged About 36 Years, Presently Working As Teacher, Shishu Kendra, Chiranga, Block Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. District Women And Child Development Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

4. District Education Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 29/11/2018 1.

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner was working as a Teacher in Shishu Kendra Chiranga, Block Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.).

2.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, she was being paid honorarium of Rs.400/- per month, however, from March-2016, the said honorarium has not been paid to the petitioner only on account of a dispute as to, whether the honorarium is to be paid by the School Education

Department or by the department of Women and Child Development, State of Chhattisgarh.

3.

The issue raised in the instant Writ Petition came up for consideration in another similar matter i.e. WPS No. 4681/2018 and where the State of Chhattisgarh have filed a reply and in their reply they have taken an specific stand that the liability of payment of honorarium would be that upon the School Education Department and in the said Writ Petition this Court has made following observations while disposing off the same:-

3. The reply submitted by the State particularly "

paragraph-5 for ready reference is being quoted hereinunder:

5. Therefore, the department of Women and child "

Development is not authorized to make payment of the petitioner's outstanding dues as the same has to be made by the department of School Education.

"

4. From the aforesaid reply it reveals that the State Govt. itself has in very categorical term accepted the fact that the liability of payment of salary/honorarium to the petitioner would be upon the School Education Department.

5. Given the said stand taken by the State Govt. in their return this Court is of the opinion that nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the present case and ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 & 4 to ensure that the salary/honorarium payable to the petitioner from the time

that it has not been paid to him be released at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

6.

Given the stand taken on either side particularly the stand of the State Government in an identical matter and this court having disposed of the said writ petition in the light of the reply filed by the State in the opinion of this Court the present writ petition can also be disposed of on similar terms. 7.

Subject to verification of the fact as to whether the petitioner has infact discharging her duties since March-2016 onwards or not, the authorities shall ensure that the honorarium payable inclusive from March-2016 onwards be released forthwith at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE