Alok Kumar Koshle v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 10102 of 2019 Alok Kumar Koshle, S/o. Shri Kalicharan Koshle, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Mochh, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Council (MGNREGA), Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayaat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mrs. Meena Shastri, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ravish Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 04.12.2019

1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Mochh and he was appointed on 27.01.2014 by the Janpad Panchayat Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, but all of a sudden, without any order of termination, the petitioner's services were not availed. Consequently, the petitioner has made a representation with an allegation that one Smt. Ruchi Viswakarma, Project Officer, Takhatpur, wanted financial favour and having not been given, his salary was stopped though termination order has not been served to him.

2. It is contended that since the petitioner was under the MGNREGA scheme, as such, without affording any opportunity, his services are not

been availed. Consequently, the petitioner claims for payment of salary for two years in the year 2017, but the same has not been paid. It is further contended that the petitioner, at this moment, may be given a liberty to make a representation to the respondent No.2/ Commissioner, MGNREGA, so that grievance of the petitioner about certain allegation can be redressed and the amount of salary can be paid.

3. Perused the documents and the allegations made in Annexure P-3. Considering the fact that the allegation have been attributed to the Project Officer Takhatpur, it would be in the interest of justice that the issue is dealt by the higher officers. Consequently, the petitioner is given liberty to make a detailed representation with all the averments and grievance to the respondent No.2 within a period of three weeks and if such representation is made, the respondent No.2, after due verification, shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

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