High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/218/2019dismissed

Mahendra Kumar Hallur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-01-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 218 of 2019 Mahendra Kumar Hallur S/o Samaiya Hallur Aged About 43 Years Caste - Mahar, R/o Gangaloor, P.S. Gangaloor, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Ministry Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin - 492002.

2. Collector The Collectorate, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, Pin - 494001

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. Pin - 494001

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. Pin - 494001.

5. District Project Coordinator Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. Pin - 494001

6. Block Education Development Officer Block Education Development, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. Pin - 494001.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Nikita Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/01/2019

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner, firstly is for grant of regularization on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. The other relief, sought for, is for release of atleast the minimum wages, which the petitioner would be entitled for in the capacity of a teacher.

2. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioner, she fairly submits that the petitioner has been out of employment since 2004 onwards. The other aspect, which cannot be lost sight of is that the petitioner does not have the qualification of the B.Ed./D.Ed. or T.I.T.

-23. The only contention, which the petitioner raises is that, the petitioner, in the past, has worked as Guruji under the Rajeev Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission on an honorarium of Rs. 1000/- per month.

4. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner is out of employment for last 14 years, itself is sufficient to hold that the relief of regularization, cannot be granted or considered at this juncture. Moreover, the petitioner for all these 14 years, never challenged his discontinuance of employment from 2004 onwards.

5. Given the said facts, this Court is of the firm view that the writ petition suffers from delay & laches, and the same deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. Reserving the right of the petitioner for approaching the authorities in the department for ventilating his grievance, the present writ petition in its present form stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved