Partly allowed

Kumari Yashoda Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2016WPS/6688/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a discontinued part-time school sweeper seeking similar relief to earlier judgment holders. Court directed Assistant Commissioner to verify facts within 90 days and grant benefits if petitioner is similarly situated.

What did the court decide?

Directed Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur, to examine petitioner's case and verify facts within 90 days; if similarly situated to earlier petitioners, grant accrued benefits.

Kumari Yashoda Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6688 of 2016

¶5

Kumari Yashoda Singh, Daughter of Shri Chandenram, aged about 22 years, Caste Gond, resident of Village Sunderpur (Bhatapara), Post Sirsi, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil and Block Bhaiyatha, Civil and Revenue District Surajpur (CG).

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, DistrictRaipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

The Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

The Collector, Surajpur, District-Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department Surajpur, District-Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

District Education Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG).

¶13

The Block Education Officer, Block Bhaiyathan, District-Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Shri B.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate For State: : Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶16

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

08/12/2016

¶19

This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Part-Time Sweeper working in a school in district -Surajpur whose service has been discontinued in the year 2012.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the large

¶21

-2-

¶22

number of similarly situated Part-Time Sweepers were discontinued from service and they had filed petitions before this Court. All those petitions were disposed off by a common order dated 9.9.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is identically situated as the petitioners in those petitions, because this petitioner was also Part-Time Sweepers appointed in school in the same district i.e. Surajpur and on similar consideration which weighed at the time of termination of petitioners in above referred petitions, this petitioner was also discontinued from service.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Part-Time Sweepers are low rank of employees and very meagerly paid. Therefore, in these circumstances, this petition may be finally disposed off with a direction to respondents to examine his case and on parity, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner.

¶24

In this petition filed by Part-Time Sweeper working in school in the same district where the petitioners were also working as Part-Time Sweepers, this Court had an occasion to examine the correctness of decision taken by the authority towards enmass termination of Part-Time Sweepers. The reasons assigned for enmass termination, as reflected in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and batch of petitions, show that the appointments were illegally made by wrongly construing and interpreting direction of the State Govt. This Court after hearing the parties, held as below:

¶25

“7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it would appear that even if the respective principals/head masters were not informed or authorized to make appointment, the fact remains that the State Government had earlier issued communications to the effect that thereis no restriction for appointing part time sweepers. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners were infact appointed by the respective principals/head masters prior to issuance of the order (Annexure-P-1) and the order (Annexure-P-7). Once the appointments have been made, even on part time basis, mass cancellation of appointments, without

¶26

-3-

¶27

there being any specific individual allegation of corruption or nepotism is not permissible. At the same time, if any part time sweeper is not attending duties as he belongs to some other village or is otherwise not efficient in his work, it always remains open for the concerned head of the department or the appointing authority to initiate action, as the petitioners have no right to hold the post, being only part time sweepers.”

¶28

Prima facie this petitioner also seem to be affected by the enmass termination while working in the same district and on similar consideration.

¶29

The petitioner, therefore, would also be entitled to similar benefits if his case is similarly situated as the case of those petitioners who had earlier approached this Court and in whose favour, common order was passed on 9.9.2015.

¶30

In view of the above consideration, respondent -Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur, shall examine the case of the petitioner and verify facts. If this petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in earlier batch of petitions, which was decided on 9.9.2015, the benefits which have accrued to those petitioners and as ordered by this Court earlier in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar (supra) shall also be granted to this petitioner.

¶31

Considering that the petitioner is very low-paid employee, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surajpur, shall complete the exercise within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

If the petitioner's grievance is not redressed/fully redressed, he will be at liberty to revive his petition.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

S (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶35

L/-

Kumari Yashoda Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Yashoda Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Regional Transport Authority and Ors.

Gourishankar Sinha Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Cg Board of Revenue,Bilaspur and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Cg Board of Revenue,Bilaspur and Ors.

Sagun Singh Thakur Vs Rishi Chandrakar