Disposed

Abdul Habib Khan and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Oct 2013WPS/3172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by government employees alleging deprivation of regular posts due to mismatch in post creation after state reorganization. The court directed the State Government to consider creating posts and decide on the petitioners' representation objectively within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to State Government to consider the creation of posts and decide on the matter objectively within two weeks; to accept a representation within three months.

Abdul Habib Khan and Ors. Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH; AT^- BILASPUR

¶2

%?VOF WRIT PETITION S NO. 2013

¶3

PETITIONERs :1. ABDUL HABIB KHAN AGED^— 52 YEARS,

¶4

S/o LATE ABDUL MAJID KHAN WORKING AT^— c. H. c. DHANELI KANHAR, P. s. & TEHSIL 8; DISTRICT^¢ KANKER (c. G.) BODHESHWAR KUMAR YADU, AGED^~ so YEARS,

¶5

BODHESHWAR KUMAR AGED^~ so YEARS, S/o SHRI MUNNA LAL YADU 3. CHINTA RAM BHUARYA, AGED^— 50 YEARS,

¶6

S/o SHRI MUNNA LAL YADU

¶7

S/O GUHA RAM BHUARYA

¶8

OM PRAKASH MISHRA, AGED^- 49 YEARS,

¶9

S/O SHRI RAMKUMAR MISHRA

¶10

[PETITIONER^{NO.2,3&4AREWORKING} AT~ C. H. C. CHARAMA, P. S. 8a TEHSIL— CHARAMA, DISTRICT^— KANKER (C. G.)]

¶11

MEHAR SINGH TEKAM, AGED^— 51 YEARS,

¶12

S/O SHRI SHIVNATH SINGH TEKAM WORKING AT^— P. H. C. AMABEDA, P. S. 85 TEHSIL^— ANTAGARH, DISTRICT^~ KANKER (C. G.)

¶13

C2) \

¶14

B. SUDARSHAN RAo

¶15

AGED^— 53 YEARS, S/o SHRI D. s.^N.RAG WORKING AT^—D.L. o.^KANKER P. s. & DISTRICT^— KANKER (c.^G.)

¶16

CHHATESH RAM^JAIN

¶17

AGED^-— 52 YEARS, S/O SHRI KISUN^RAMJAIN WORKING AT^{—C.H.C.DHANELI} KANHAR,^{P.S.85TEHSIL8L} DISTRICT^— KANKER (C.^G.)

¶18

KESHAV KUMAR^BARSAGADE,

¶19

AGED^— 52^YEARS, S/O SHEI BABU^LALBARSAGADE WORKING AT^~C.H.C. DURGKONDAL,

¶20

P. S. 7^DURGKONDAL DISTRICT^— KANKER (C.^G.)

¶21

KOMAL PRASAD^SAHU,

¶22

AGED^— 49^YEARS,

¶23

S / O CHHATRAPAL^SINGH, WORKING AT^{—C.H.C.AMODA,}

¶24

P. S. 85 DISTRICT^—KANKER (C.^G.)

J. R. NAGESH,

AGED^— 51^YEARS,

S/O SHRI^KARTIKRAM, WORKING AT^—C.H.C.

¶29

NARHARPUR,

¶30

P. s. 8. DISTRICT^—KANKER (c.^G.)

¶31

(V Qg)

¶32

1 1. MANI RAM DHRITLAHARE, AGED^— 49 YEARS, S/O SHRI GHASIYA RAM, WORKING AT^— P. H. C. KORAR, P. S. BHANUPRATAPPUR, DISTRICT^— KANKER (C. G.) 12. PARITOSH MISTRI, AGED^— 46 YEARS, S/o SHRI MANORANJAN WORKING AT P. H. c. BANDE, DISTRICT^— KANKER (c. G.) 13. MOHD. SHARIF QURESHI, AGED^— 48- YEARS, S/o SHRI N. M. QURESHI, WORKING AT^— P. H. C. KAPSI, P. s.^— KAPSI, DISTRICT KANKER (c. G.) 14. PARMESHWAR DEEN, AGED^— 54 YEARS, S/O SHRI GANGA PRASAD DEEN, WORKING AT^—— C. H.^C. BHANUPRATAPPUR, P. S.^— BHANUPRATAPPUR, DISTRICT^- KANKER (C. G.) 15. BRIJESH KUMAR DUBEY, AGED^— 53 YEARS, S/O SHRI MULCHAND DUBEY, WORKING AT^— 0/0 C. M. H. O KANKER, TEHSIL & P. S.^- DISTRICT^~ KANKER(C.G)

¶33

rwy.

¶34

(Q)
(7

¶35

ARAKH RAM BAGHEL, AGED ~ 42 YEARS, S/o SHRI KALI RAM BAGHEL WORKING AT ~ c. H. c. AMODA, P. s. as DISTRICT — KANKER (cm

¶36

K1;

¶37

RADHE SHYAM SEMLE, AGED ‘ 56 YEARS, S/O SHRI UDIYAJI SEMLE, WORKING AT —— C. H. C. DURGKONDAL,

¶38

P. S. — DURGKONDAL DISTRICT -— KANKER(C.G)

¶39

MIRzA RASHID BEG MUGAL, AGED — 58 YEARS,

¶40

S/O MIRZA SHAKUR BEG MUGAL

¶41

¶42

¶43

DEENBANDHU SHARMA, AGED — 46 YEARS, S/O VENKAT PRASAD SHARMA,

¶44

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, AGED — 53 YEARS, S/O SHRI MULCHAND SHARMA,

¶45

MISS VIMLA MISHRA, AGED — 53 YEARS,

¶46

.D/O^SHRI PARMESHWAR PRASAD

¶47

¶48

VINAYAK SINGI-I THAKUR, AGED ~« 53 YEARS, S/O SHRI SHIV SINGH THAKUR

W$g

a EWN?“

Cg) \“<br>

£PETITIONER^N0.18TO22ARE WORKING AT^— C. H. C. TILDA, p. s.^— TILDA, DISTRICT^- RAIPUR(CG)1 23. RAJESH JAISWAL, AGED^a 45 YEARS, S/O SHRI B. L. JAISWAL

¶53

SHAILENDRA RICHHARIYA, AGED^— 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI M. K. RICHHARIYA,

¶54

[THE^{PETITIONERNO.23&24ARE} WORKING AT^— LEPROCY HOME & HosprrAL, PANDRI, p. s.^— PANDRI, RAIPUR, DISTRICT^— RAIPUR (c. G4]

¶55

VERSUS

¶56

RESPONDENTS

¶57

t 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH^— ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC^HEALTH 8L FAMILY WELFARE, MANTRALAYA MAHANADI BHAWAN, NAYA^RAIPUR

¶58

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

¶59

PUBLIC HEALTH⁸⁵ FAMILY WELFARE, CHHATTISGARH,

¶60

H. Q.^—- INDRAWATI BHAWAN, NAYA RAIPUR.

¶61

3. THE DIRECTOR,

¶62

HEALTH SERVICES, CHHATTISGARH,

¶63

H. Q.^— INDRAWATI BHAWAN, NAYA RAIPUR

é (6) \

Writ Petiticn wider Article a 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶68

o/
\‘<br>

¶69

Hues-i mum oF^{(:HHATT:SGARH,} gnmswa

¶70

WP. (s) No, 3112 o§ £012“,

¶71

PSETITIQN$R Abdul Habib Khan and others;

¶72

Versus

¶73

RE$PQNDENTS state of Chfxattisgarh and 92mm.

¶74

Shfishri R.K.Ajay KeShafwani.Dwivedi, w. COUnSEiGovt. Advocatef0? the pefit§0fl6Lfor the state.

¶75

5iii‘vSG’LE BEIVCH t HGN’ELE $Hi§i PR§$Hfk$1T KUMf-‘KR @EEWRil, J. 0am. QRQgR ‘ gmnmzmg

¶76

Petitiénerg are warkim as Nan-Mama? A§$i$tarxt in the Qepartment 3f Famiw Weifate, Gosiemment 0f Ciihatti$gam flax/Mg béei’:^agmimadin tha erstwhiie unified State of Madhya Praaash in^{1936.AnnexuiePmisone} such Ietter ¢f appointmernt in which namés af smme of the- petitmners^find mace and simiiar orders were issued with^{ra$pecttoothet} yetitioners^also. According to the petitioners, at the time af rearganization 0f the^state,an creatian of present State of Chhattisgam, M6^{Non-MedicaiAs$i$tantwere} warking in the area faliing in the state 6f ahhattisgam, hawever, as (:3 agaiiist the said numher at empioyees waikifxg,^{aniy 3?} pasts^warecreated in the setup af the department. Thus^:i69 Nonniiiiediuai AS$i$tant^havebeen renderets without any reguiar post fat them and^{foriastattain13} years^the $tiaté Gnvgrnment haa net created gm? in the dgpartmeni besaasa of whinh the patiiianém ai'e (ieniai chaném^a? gmmatimn {evi$im 9f pay imam; stepping ugs at.

¶77

{BE Learnad counsei f0! the petitioners; wauid submit^{thatmingfaced} with the situation and having repteeenteii the matter betwe- the mate Gavemment 0n umpteen number at time and even aftet thieatening of éemonstratian and sttike, the $tate Gnvemment has net taken any ciecision in the matter, therefcie, the pieeent writ petition^fmissuanceof directions as prayed in pai'a 10 of the writ netition, has^been nreterred.^He wouid further submit that the prcnosal^{forcreationof} past^far including them in the setup 0f the department is genuine^{consideratianbefarethe} mate Guverrrment, therefore, the present writ petition^{maybedisposedof} direating the $tate Government te take^{apuroprietedecisioninthematter} at the earlieet,

¶78

m Having consiaiered the materiai eveiiaiiie iii the reentre this Ccurt genie it appmpriate^tr: ciisp0$e^{itthe rereeem^writ petitian^{wtthatiireetinn}

¶79

oi}
<br>

¶80

g’

¶81

mm if teh petionetirg perefr^fepnn tesetatia^ré ising-theit erenti grievances with radgar ta creation of post in the satup‘ 0f teh deparentmt gntra^of revisad pay scaei, spginteig up: pmotiamn^ec. t within a period of two weeks from toda,y the conceedrn coetentmp authority 0f the state Gmvamment shal! teak up^the matter at the earliest and decide the petitionrs’e reretpsenatian^inanobjectiv e manna, in accordncea^wit h i,aw an its awn mersit as eriay as pe,ussibi preeabiyfr wihitn a further pariad of tmhé manths from the date af $umi$imbs^a? rn.agiresentaiia {4} in the etven any^a dverse deciiarr$^i$ rgirerr by tha $atté2 Gavemment: tm paitiorriem wouid be at itibery^ta wave arawhr befere rhii: Cmm. {5 } Writ patitimr^stand$fiaiiy n der?iapos a?”

Abdul Habib Khan and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Habib Khan and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Kumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Laxman Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Tikamchand Patel Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Smt. Purna Chatterjee Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Anshu Gupta and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.