Disposed

Mayaram Tamboli v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Oct 2022WPS/6357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation regarding his service discontinuation. The court directed the respondents to decide the representation within four weeks, citing a specific precedent, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to submit fresh representation within 2 weeks; Respondents directed to decide within 4 weeks.

Mayaram Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6357 of 2022

¶5

Mayaram Tamboli S/o Late Shri Ayodhya Prasad Tamboli Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Sakreri, Post Sakreri- B, Tehsil And Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa (Now Sakti), Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Director Direcotrate Public Educational, Block C, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

District Education Officer, Sakti District- Janjgir- Champa (Now Sakti), District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate For State : Shri Vaibhav Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

12/10/2022

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 01.05.2018 on the post of Computer Operator at collector rate and since the date of his

¶19

-2-

¶20

appointment, he continuously worked with respondent No.4 till 13.6.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.4 orally instructed the petitioner not to come to the office and thereby he was discontinued from his service. He submits that the petitioner aggrieved by action of respondent No.4 submitted an application /representation before respondent No.3 on 24.8.2022. Respondent has not considered the claim of the petitioner and not decided the same either way even after lapse of long time. He submits that since the date of discontinuation of his services as Computer Operator, the petitioner became unemployed and is facing financial difficulties. He further submits that in the aforementioned facts of the case, at this stage, grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondents No.2 & 3 raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and in turn, direction may be issued to respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider and decide representation within specified time.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State would submit that he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to to submit a fresh representation before respondents No. 2 & 3 raising all the

¶23

-3-

¶24

grounds as raised in this petition within a period of 2 weeks form today and respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to consider and decide representation within a further period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of representation in accordance with law keeping in mind the decision rendered in the case of Prasann Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPS No. 7753 of 2018) decided on 26.07.2019.

¶25

With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-------/--/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

Praveen

Mayaram Tamboli v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayaram Tamboli 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

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Ashutosh Shinde Vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Lafarge India Private Limited (Now Known as Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd.) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Supriya Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Urmila Yadav Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited