Smt Kamunda Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

2024:CGHC:33446

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 5310 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt Kamunda Bai Widow Of Late Sahodar Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bhaisajhar, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Smt. Baisakha Bai Banjare Widow Of Mansai @ Man Singh Banjare Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Bhaisajhar, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Narth Block Sector 19 Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Chief Engineer Hasdev Kachhar, Water Resources Department Bilaspur DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

02/09/2024

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of the petitioners was working as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee. He further submits that an identical issue came up for considering before this Court in in case of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided on 30.09.2022 , wherein petitioners therein have raised identical issue which was allowed

¶18

2 / 2

¶19

in their favour. He submits that at this stage, petitioner may be permitted to submit representation in light of the decision in case of Faguvaram Patel (supra) and respondents be directed to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner expeditiously within specified time.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the documents indicate that the her husband was working as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee. However, no documents has been filed in respect to petitioner No. 2. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that his case is covered by the judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra).

¶21

Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of at this stage permitting the petitioners to make a representation to respondents/competent authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to indicate the fact that their husband were working as Work charged Contingency Paid Employee with the respondents. On such representation being made, the respondents/competent authority shall decide the same within a further period of 120 days from the receipt of copy of this representation and on due satisfaction if it is found that the petitioner’s husband were similarly situated employees as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra) they may pass appropriate order in this regard. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Pawan

Smt Kamunda Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamunda Bai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukeshdhar Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfileds Limited Vs Uday Pratap Singh

Yashwant Kumar Verma, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh