Disposed

Devendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Oct 2024WPS/716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Collector to decide the petitioner's pending representation regarding unpaid salary as a daily wage employee. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to submit a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Collector to decide pending representation on unpaid salary within two months.

Devendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:40713

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 716 of 2021

¶6

Devendra Kumar S/o Late Devlal Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chediya, Tehsil And Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Collector Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Education Officer Balod , District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Siksha Mission (Samgra School) Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Siksha Mission (Samgra School) Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate
For State/Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruprarel, Panel Lawyer
For Resp. No.4 & 5 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

16/10/2024

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the respondents authorities be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner from April 2017 to July 2017 and from December 2019 to March 2020.

¶22

That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s) which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order issued by competent authority, petitioner was initially engaged as Watchman in the office of Rajeev Gandhi Siksha Mission, Balod. However, subsequently he was engaged by the District Education Officer to work in the District Library, Balod. Petitioner continuously worked there and he was being paid consolidated salary of Rs.9,230/- per month. However, the petitioner was not paid salary from month of April 2017 to July 2017 and thereafter from December 2019 to March 2020. From March 2020 petitioner was discontinued from his job. He submits that petitioner has not filed this writ petition for continuing the petitioner in service, however, he is only claiming with respect to unpaid salary to him for the period mentioned in the writ petition. Petitioner has also submitted representation before respondents No. 2 & 3, but representation submitted by petitioner was not decided and therefore a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 & 3 to take decision on representation within specified time.

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

Learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that petitioner was engaged as Daily Wage Employee at District Library Balod and his salary was being paid from the office of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Balod. His services were only up to November 2019 and the petitioner was paid salary for the period for which he worked as Daily Wage Employee in the District Library, Balod.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5/Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Missions opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the State and would submit that pleading made in the reply of State that salary of the petitioner as Daily Wage Employee is being paid from office of Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Balod is not correct. Wages of the petitioner is being paid from the office of District Education Officer. She further submits that in view of grievance raised and the question involved for consideration, appropriate authority to consider the claim of petitioner would be respondent No.2/Collector who is Mission Direction of the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission and also superior authority in the district under the Education Department. As the petitioner has already submitted representation, a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to take decision on pending representation.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶28

From the pleadings made in the writ petition as also reply submitted by the State, it is not in dispute that petitioner was engaged to work in the District Library as Daily Wage Employee. Claim of the petitioner is that petitioner worked till March 2020, however, the pleading in the reply of the State is that petitioner worked till November 2019 and further the disputed fact was being raised by learned counsel for the

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

respondents No. 1 to 3 and counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 with respect to source of payment from which the petitioner was paid wages.

¶31

In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, nature of grievance as raised in this writ petition can very well be considered by respondent No.2/Collector being the Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Balod and further the Superior Authority in the district, under Education Department and therefore respondent No.2 is directed to take decision on pending representation submitted by the petitioner on 30.05.2020 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶32

As representation is of the year 2020, petitioner would be at liberty to submit fresh representation along with copy of order to be placed before respondent No.2/Collector and if such representation is submitted, the same shall also be considered and decided as directed above.

¶33

With the aforementioned observations and directions writ petition stands disposed off.

¶34

Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

Praveen

Devendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar 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

Angaram Sagarvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwari Kaiwart Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jeetin Dube Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanau Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh