Disposed

Munikaran Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2023WPS/2095/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition concerning alleged discrimination in appointment. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within 15 days for the respondent authorities to decide within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation within 15 days; respondent authorities to decide and pass speaking order within 60 days.

Munikaran Mishra Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2095 of 2013

¶5

Munikaran Mishra S/o Lalmani Mishra Aged About 45 Years Working As Peon, Forest Depot Sukma, P.S. Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Civil And Revenue District Sukma Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Divisional Forest Officer Sukma Forest Division, Sukma, P.S. Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh

¶11

Conservator Of Forest Jagdalpur Circle, P.S. Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri C Jayant K Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Smt. Meena Shastri, Addl. Advocate General

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶15

03.8.2023

¶16

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage itself.

¶17

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on 01.01.1987 in the Forest Department. On 26.9.2008, his services were regularized in the post of Peon. It is further submitted that in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009, a number of daily wages employees were appointed on the post of Forest Guard and even juniors to the petitioner were also appointed on the posts of Forest Guard. Despite having requisite qualification, the petitioner has not been appointed on the post of Forest Guard till date, whereas less qualified daily wagers have been appointed on the aforesaid post. Thus, there has been clear discrimination with the petitioner by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that despite recommendation made by Divisional Forest Officer, Sukma, for absorption of the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5 and P/6, he is still working on the post of Peon. It is

¶18

¶19

further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to file fresh representation to the respondent authorities and this petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider and redress grievances of the petitioner in view of the appointment of the daily wagers, that too junior to the petitioners in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009.

¶20

3 . Learned counsel for the respondent/State would submit that though in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009, a number of daily wagers were appointed on the post of Forest Guard, but record of the petitioner was not available, therefore, he was not appointed as Forest Guard and subsequently post was not available. She would further submit that if the petitioner files fresh representation, then it will be considered and decided by the respondent authorities in accordance with applicable rules.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

5. Perusal of Annexure P/3 shows that a number of daily wages employees were appointed on the post of Forest Guard in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009. List also shows that various persons, who were juniors to the petitioners, have also been appointed on the aforesaid post. Yet, it cannot be held that the non-appointment of the applicant to the post of Forest Guard on the ground that the documents are misplaced is just and proper.

¶23

6. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file fresh representation raising all his grievances to the respondent authorities, within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent authorities/competent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within 60 days after filing the petitioner's representation.

¶24

7 . In view of the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-

¶25

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶26

Bini

Munikaran Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munikaran Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuleshwar Thakur Vs Lilambar

Mahesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bheekham Lal Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Reeta Chand Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Apesh Jaal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Nirmalkar @ Monu Vs State of Chhattisgarh