Smt. Raiyamati Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

Digitally signed byREKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:30077

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3839 of 2015

¶7

Smt. Raiyamati Baghel W/o Ramdhar Baghel, Aged About 40 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Primary School Chewaras, Block Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

The District Education Officer, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

The Audit Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms.Nupoor Sonkar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

Page 2 of 3

09.08.2024

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the benefit of the Circular dated 02.11.2011 for the grant of time-bound promotion/Kramonnati on completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner has claimed parity in view of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.389/14, decided on 23/03/2015.

¶23

Ms. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that the benefit of the Circular dated 02.11.2011 has been withdrawn by issuing a Circular on 14.11.2014 w.e.f. 01.05.2013. She further submitted that subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 227/2015 and 231/2015 has passed an order, therefore, the present petition does not survive.

¶24

3) The above statement is not disputed by Ms. Sonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ms. Sonkar submitted that a representation has already been made by the petitioner, therefore, a direction may be issued to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 227/2015 and 231/2015.

¶25

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

¶26

In Writ Appeal Nos. 227/2015 & 231/2015 , a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-

¶27

“3. The Writ Appeals arise from separate orders, dated 17.10.2014 and 26.9.2014, disposing a batch of analogous cases including Writ Petition (S) No.2914 of 2014 and Writ Petition (S) No.4382 of 2014 filed by the Appellants. Since we

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

have already heard and disposed Writ Appeal No.389 of 2014 and analogous appeals involving similar questions as raised in the present Writ Appeals on 23.3.2015, it is considered appropriate to condone the delay. Delay is therefore condoned.

¶30

4. While passing the order dated 23.3.2015, the subsequent order passed by the Respondents on 14.11.2014 recalling the order dated 2.11.2011 with effect from 1.5.2013 had not been brought to our attention.

¶31

5. The present Writ Appeals are therefore disposed in similar terms as Writ Appeal No.389 of 2014 and analogous appeals, dated 23.3.2015, with the only clarification that in view of the order dated 14.11.2014 the claim of the Appellants is required to be considered only for the period 2.11.2011 till 1.5.2013.

¶32

6. The Writ Appeals are disposed in similar terms as Writ Appeal No.389 of 2014 and analogous appeals with the aforesaid clarification.”

¶33

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Writ Appeal Nos. 227/2015 & 231/2015. In other words, the petitioner’s case for the grant of Kramonnati is required to be considered only for the period from 02.11.2011 till 01.05.2013, if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria as per the norms laid down by the State Government.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Rekha

Smt. Raiyamati Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raiyamati Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwani Kumar Dhurw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kumari Manorama Bharti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Ashish Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

B.p. Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kamdev Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

J.n.singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.