Remanded

Smt. Rajkumari Gayakwad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2020WPS/476/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-decision on her regularization claim. The court held that a Labour Court reinstatement order deemed her service to run continuously from 1992, entitling her to reconsideration under the Circular dated 05/03/2008. A committee was directed to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's case to be considered by a committee under Circular dated 05/03/2008 within three months.

Smt. Rajkumari Gayakwad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

WPS No. 476 of 2020

¶3

Smt. Rajkumari Gayakwad W/o Shri Rambhau Aged About 45 Years Working As Mazdoor At Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Project Division - 3, Machadoli , District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Water Resources Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Chief Engineer Minimata Bango Project , Water Resources Department , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Executive Engineer Minimata Bango Dam Division - 3, Machadoli, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Sub Divisional Officer Minimata Bango Dam Division No. 4/15 Machadoli, Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For petitioner- Shri Ritesh Giri, Advocate. For State-Smt. Richa Shukla, Dy.G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶13

Order

¶14

04/02/2020

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition is that even though the petitioner is continuing as daily wage employee since long, her claim for regularization has not been decided till date. It is submitted that though the petitioner was terminated in August, 1996 award of reinstatement was passed in her favour by the Labour Court in the year 2014 with the legal consequence that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the initial date of appointment in the year 1992.

¶17

If the case of the petitioner is considered treating her initial date of appointment as in the year 1992, she would be entitled to be considered for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008 issued for consideration of cases of regularization pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court in

¶18

the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 for consideration of cases of those, who have completed 20 years of service.

¶19

After going through the records and orders passed by the Labour Court, it is quite clear that the effect of the order would be that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break. This would entitle the petitioner for due consideration for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008. It is ordered accordingly.

¶20

Let the case of the petitioner be considered by a duly constituted Committee as per policy dated 05/03/2008 and a decision be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

JUDGE

gouri

Smt. Rajkumari Gayakwad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajkumari Gayakwad 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

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs Suresh Kumar Pandey

Smt. Sushila Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sarita Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S.m.tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Kiran Devi Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Louis Kumar Ludgar Lakra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh