Disposed

Smt. Namita Nair v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2019WPS/1398/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed a claim by the petitioner regarding alleged oral termination of services filed more than 21 years after the events. The court disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Sukma, to pass an appropriate order within four months in accordance with rules and regulations.

Smt. Namita Nair Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1398 OF 2019

¶5

Smt. Namita Nair W/o Shri Ajay Nair, Aged About 43 Years (Before Marriage Name Was Ku. Namita Das, D/o Late Shri S.C. Das) R/o House No. 96, Bagichapara, Near Sishumandir, Ward No. 11, Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

…Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. The Collector, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. The Collector, District Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

… Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

06.03.2019

¶16

1. The limited relief which the petitioner is seeking for after arguing for sometime is that, the respondent No.4 in the present case vide his letter dated 23.09.2017 had called upon the petitioner to appear before him along with all relevant records which is available with the petitioner and thereafter there seems to be no decision taken by the respondent No.4.

¶17

2. The claim of the petitioner seems to be in respect of the alleged oral termination order of the services of the petitioner after worked for about four months period from June, 1996 onwards.

¶18

3. The contention of the petitioner itself reveals that the petitioner has been out of employment for last more than 21 years and the present writ petition also is being filed after 21 years.

¶19

¶20

4. Given the aforesaid facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, let the respondent No.4-Tehsildar, Sukma, pass an appropriate order in accordance with rules and regulations governing the field within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order pursuant to his letter dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure P/3).

¶21

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶23

inder

Smt. Namita Nair v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Namita Nair 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajuram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prof.Dr. Uma Shankar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prof.Dr. B.K. Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku. Anita Rai ( Now Married Smt. Anita Daniel) Vs State of Chhattigarh

Pawan Gayakwad Vs Krishi Yantri, Karyalaya Sahayak Krishi Yantri, Agriculture Department

Khan Waquaruzzaman Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh