Disposed

Anant Kumar Sirdar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jan 2018WPS/444/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition by a part-time sweeper whose services were discontinued. The High Court direct the respondent to individually examine the case and grant benefits on parity with petitioners in an earlier decided batch, within 90 days, allowing revival if grievance remains unredressed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surajpur to examine the case of the petitioner individually and grant benefits on parity within 90 days.

Anant Kumar Sirdar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 444 of 2018

¶4

Anant Kumar Sirdar Son Of Shri Buddhuram, Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Sweeper, R/o Village Kandrai, Newardand, Thana- Jaynagar, Block- Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Schedued Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Assistant Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Development, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Collector, Office- Collector, Aadivasi Vikas, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

17/01/2017

¶16

This petition has been filed by the Part-Time Sweeper working in a primary school in District - Surajpur whose services have been discontinued.

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that large 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 the petitioner was also a Part-Time Sweeper appointed in primary school in the same district i.e. Surajpur and on similar consideration which weighed at the time of termination of

¶18

the petitioner in above referred petitions, this petitioner was also discontinued from service.

¶19

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 the case of the petitioner and on parity, similar relief may be granted.

¶20

In a batch of petitions filed by Part-Time Sweepers working in various schools in the same district where the petitioner was also working as Part-Time Sweeper, this Court had an occasion to examine the correctness of the 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:

¶21

“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 there is 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 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.”

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

In view of the above consideration, respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surajpur shall individually 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 the petitioner.

¶25

Considering that the petitioner is a 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶28

Deepti

Anant Kumar Sirdar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Kumar Sirdar 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

Ramkumar Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dashi Ram Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shivendra Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sita Devi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adil Hasan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh