Mrs. Anuradha Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4490 of 2019 Mrs. Anuradha Sahu W/o Satish Sahu, aged about 54 Years Proprietor Of Auroarts and Director Of Auroarts V.T.P. Center Lakhanpur, Surguja, Registration No. CG 1603P001, R/o Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Special Secretary, Ias Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education, Employment, Science And Technology, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Executive Officer, C.G. State Skill Development Agency Old Police Headquarter Premises, Gauravpath Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001

3. The Collector/ Assistant Director, Collectorate, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 497001

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, Collectorate, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 497001

5. Assistant Director, Office Of Cssda- Ambikapur, Livelihood College, New Building, Near Govt. Poytechnic College, Namnakal Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 497001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 09/12/2019

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 on 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 Auro Arts. According to the petitioner establishment they have given such vocational training to three batch of students as would be evident from the correspondences made by the department Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-10 onwards enforced along with the writ petition. According to the petitioner subsequently on the petitioner raising the bills for releasing the amount she is entitled for against the training provided, 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 5 for immediately processing the claim of the petitioner. That in case if it is found that petitioner is entitled for the same, they shall take steps for releasing the same and in case if 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 respondents to apprise respondent No.2 to 5 so far as 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 Rohit