Gyan Sagar Seva Sansthan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 3400 of 2018 Gyan Sagar Seva Sansthan Through Its Director, T.R. Barik, S/o Rameshwar Barik, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Akashwani Chowk, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Authority, Raiur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Assistant Director, Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Authority, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri CJK Rao, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04.02.2020 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing the amount which the petitioner is entitled for against the training which the petitioner has provided to the three batches of students who had undertaken for skill development.

2.

According to the petitioner, the State Government had introduced the Mukhya Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojna 'MMKVY' for the development of skills of the youth of the villages so as to enable them to earn their own livelihood. The training was to be given from a concerned Vocational Training Provider one such vocational training provider was the petitioner operating in the name of Gyan Sagar Seva Sansthan. According to the petitioner establishment they have given such vocational training to different batch of students as would be evident from the correspondences

-2made by the department Annexure P-3 (Collectively) enclosed along with the writ petition. According to the petitioner subsequently on the petitioner raising the bills for releasing the amount, they are entitled for the same against the training provided, however, the same till date has not been released in spite of the fact that dues are admissible and there is no dispute.

3.

Given the limited grievance that petitioner has, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet, if writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to 4 for immediately processing the claim of the petitioner. That, in case if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the same, they shall take steps for releasing the same and in case if the petitioner is not entitled for the same the, petitioner should be suitably intimated in this regard with reasons for the same. 4.

Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondents No.2 to 4 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned.

5.

Needless to mention that decision by the respondents would be subject to the verification of the factual matrix from the concerned department. 6.

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