Allowed

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Jan 2024WPS/194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, granted compassionate appointment after delay, sought notional seniority for the period of delay attributable to the department. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to decide the pending representation within 60 days, considering the legal position laid down in C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending representation within 60 days considering C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala.

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 194 of 2024

¶4

Ajay Kumar Mishra, S/o Lt. K.P. Mishra, Aged About 37 Years Currently Working As Forest Guard, Bilaspur Forest Circle, DFO Office, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Medical Collage Road, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Chief Conservator Of Forest, Forest Circle Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

Conservator Of Forest, Forest Circle Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur, Forest Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Diwan, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel ORDER ON BOARD

¶16

2 9 / 01/2024

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father was working as Forest Guard. He died on 28.11.2013, when he was on duty. The petitioner on 06.01.2014 submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶18

As per guideline/memo dated 14.06.2013 of the General Administration Department, the petitioner ought to have been given appointment within three months, from the date he submitted his application. However, the application of the petitioner was allowed on 15.01.2016 and the petitioner was granted appointment on

¶19

compassionate basis.

¶20

According to the counsel for petitioner, the department ought to have granted appointment to the petitioner within three months. The delay occurred was on the part of the department itself, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get his seniority on notional basis. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has already made a representation before the respondents vide Annexure P/1 dated 15.12.2023, which has not been decided yet.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed of directing the respondents No.3 to consider and decide the pending representation in accordance with relevant rules and law, as also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala an others” reported in (2020) 5 SCC 230.

¶22

The said prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the State counsel.

¶23

In view of the above submissions made by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case, petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P/1) in accordance with relevant rules and law and also taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “C. Jayachandran” (supra) and pass an order within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Sd/ - (Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE

¶26

ved

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Mishra 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

Smt. Sushma Asha Manila Khalko Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandresh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asir Ahmad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Rafiq Vs Union of India

Richi Lal Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims)

Komal Kumar Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh