Disposed

Ramkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2019WPS/40/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy directed the Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur to verify if the petitioner, a part-time sweeper facing termination similar to other sweepers in earlier cases, is similarly situated and entitled to benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur directed to examine and verify petitioner's case; if similarly situated, grant benefits from earlier judgments. Assistant Commissioner to

Ramkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 40 OF 2019

¶4

1. Ramkumar S/o Shri Hukum Sai Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Ex Part Time Sweeper, At Government Middle School Kalipur Village Kalipur Block Premnagar District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Director, Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. The Collector District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh......(Tribal Department), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. The District Education Officer Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur, DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5. The Block Education Officer Premnagar District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

… Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Shri R. V. Rajwade, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

08.01.2019

¶17

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction for consideration of his case on the same terms as in case of petitioners in WPS No. 1888/2017 in whose favour order dated 26.04.2017 has been passed.

¶18

2. Learned State counsel submits in order to apply the aforesaid verdict in the present case, it will require verification with regard to extending the same benefit to the present petitioner.

¶19

¶20

3. It is found that the petitioner is also the Part-Time Sweeper working in the various Govt. Primary/Middle Schools of District Surajpur and his services has been discontinued in the year 2012.

¶21

4. 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 PartTime 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 passed in WPS No. 3981/2012 on 09.09.2015, 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 :-

¶22

“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 the 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

¶23

¶24

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.”

¶25

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

¶26

6. 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 in Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar (supra).

¶27

7. In view of the above consideration, respondent Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur shall individually examine the case of the petitioner and verify facts. If the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in earlier batch of petitions, which was decided on 09.09.2015, 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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

9. If the petitioner's grievance is not redressed/fully redressed, he will

¶31

be at liberty to revive the petition.

¶32

10. The writ petition stands disposed off.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶35

Priyanka

Ramkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar 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

Hemant Kumar Soni Vs Divisional Commissioner

Kumari Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanchan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Sudarshan Singh Ahir Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Yudhishthir Pareshwar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh