Disposed

Tirath Ram Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2024WPS/1974/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-fixation of pay and pending increments. The single judge observed the submissions and disposed of the petition without examining merits, directing the respondent to decide the pending representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Tirath Ram Nishad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:39780

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1974 of 2024

¶6

1 - Tirath Ram Nishad S/o Shri Santram Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tarri, Post- Patewa, Tahsil- Gobra- Navapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Directorate Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, First Floor, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Near DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distrit- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

(cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

08/10/2024

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.07.2014, petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Assistant Grade – III, however, till date, pay of petitioner has not been fixed and increments has not been added. Petitioner submitted representation, however, same was not considered and therefore,

¶17

2 / 2

¶18

direction be issued to respondent authorities to take decision on the pending representation at the earliest.

¶19

Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is only seeking a direction to decide the pending representation submitted by petitioner, she is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, without entering into merits, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, directing respondent No. 1 to take decision on the pending representation of petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶23

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶24

Shayna

Tirath Ram Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirath Ram Nishad 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

Santulal Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ishtiaq Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Doman Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nandani Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh