Disposed

Rajeshwar Ram Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Dec 2023WPS/1857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his suspension and lack of reinstatement. Bench disposed of petition, granting liberty to file fresh representation with the High Court Commissioner and Joint Director within seven days, directed to decide within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file fresh representation; respondents directed to consider representation within 10 days.

Rajeshwar Ram Bhagat Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1857 of 2023

¶3

Rajeshwar Ram Bhagat S/o Late Pandru Ram Aged About 54 Years Working On The Post Of Sport Officer, Posted At Late Mahli Bhagat Govt. Collage - Kushami, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Presently Suspended)

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

The Commissioner Higher Education Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

The Joint Director Higher Education Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Principal Late Mahli Bhagat Govt. Collage - Kushami, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Collector Balrampur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title as taken from CIS System)

¶13

_____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

12/12/2023

¶17

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that vide order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-1), the Petitioner has been suspended from his services and even after completion of 8-9 months, no chargesheet has been issued against the Petitioner. Further, after filing the

¶18

instant petition in the month of March 2023, charge-sheet has been issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter, no progress has been done in the said charge-sheet. Moreover, even after issuance of charge-sheet, no order of extension of suspension has been passed by the Respondents. According to the Counsel, the matter is squarely covered with the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of “ Manisha Pathak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Appeal No. 456/2022, order dated 09.09.2022” which is based upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , therefore, it is prayed by the Counsel that the instant petition may also be disposed of and the services of the Petitioner may also directed to be reinstated.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that though the matter is squarely covered with the above referred judgments but, he submits that the instant petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation before the Respondents and after filing such representation, on verification, if it will be found that no order of extension of suspension has been passed then the Respondents may be directed to pass an order of reinstatement of service in favour of the Petitioner in light of above judgments referred by Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record, at this stage, the instant petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Respondents No.2 & 3 within seven days from the date of recipt of copy of this order and after filing such representation, Respondents No.2 & 3 in turn are directed to consider and decide the same within 10 days thereof in accordance with relevant rules and in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Manisha Pathak (Supra) and the judgment

¶21

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (Supra).

¶22

With the above observation, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶23

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶24

Shubham

Rajeshwar Ram Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Ram Bhagat 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

Yashwant Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Sindram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Japthapi Vs State of Chhattisgarh