Smt. Maya Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:35670

¶3

Digitally 2025:CGHC:35670 signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.07.26

¶4

12:50:32 NAFR +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCC No. 730 of 2025

¶7

1 - Smt. Maya Verma W/o. Shri Santosh Kumar Verma, Aged About 51 Years Posted As Lecturer (LB), Government Higher Secondary School, Belhrabahra, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Ministry Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

2 - Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Ministry Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

3 - Collector Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Manendragarh, District ManendragarhChirmiriBharatpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

5 - District Education Officer, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- ChirmiriBharatpur(Chhattisgarh)

¶15

6 - Block Education Officer, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-ChirmiriBharatpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents

¶16

For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL

¶17

2

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

24/07/2025

¶21

This MCC is preferred for modification in the cause title of order dated 19.2.2024 passed in WPS No.1022/2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench and by way of such modification either the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Korea, Distt. Korea be impleaded, as a newly added respondent or it be permitted to be impleaded in place of respondent No.4/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.).

¶22

Vide order dated 19.2.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(S) No.1022/2024, following order was passed in paragraph 4:-

¶23

“4. Considering facts of the case, nature of relief, limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-State, without commenting on merits of the case, writ petition is disposed of at this stage directing respondent Nos.4 to 6 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner

¶24

Annexure P-2 in accordance with the relevant rules and law, preferably within an outer limit of ' 90 days ' from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is posted as Lecturer Local Body (LB) at the Government Higher Secondary School, Belhrabahra, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). He further submits that applicant had preferred the writ petition (S)

¶26

3

¶27

No.1022/2024, as she was not granted arrears of revised pay scale. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.2.2024 (Annexure A1) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, directing the respondent/competent authority to decide the representations of the applicant in accordance with law and rules preferably within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He next submits that competent authority of applicant is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Korea, District Korea (C.G.), but, inadvertently, instead of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Korea, District Korea (C.G.), the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District ManendragarhChirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) was made party in the writ petition, therefore, application/ representation in compliance of order dated 19.2.2024, was not accepted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Korea, District Korea. Hence, the order dated 19.2.2024, may be modified by permitting the applicant to implead the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korea, District Korea in WP(S) No.1022/2024 as respondent, instead of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶28

4. Per contra, learned State counsel raise objection to the above prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶29

Since order has already been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(S) No.1022/2024 on 19.2.2024, mentioning cause title as per the writ petition in which the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Korea, District Korea (C.G.) was not made party, now applicant cannot be permitted to implead the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila

¶30

4

¶31

Panchayat, Korea, District Korea (C.G.) as respondent in the writ petition. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to modify the order dated 19.2.2024.

¶32

However, earlier, Belhrabahra was an area in Korea District, subsequently, after bifurcation of area of Korea District (C.G.), Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur District came into existence, therefore, it seems that bonafide mistake was committed by the counsel for the applicant in impleading party in writ petition. Hence, applicant may file appropriate application before the Collector, Manendragarh District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) along with copy of the order dated 19.2.2024 and copy of this order. Thereafter, the Collector, Manendragarh District ManendragarhChirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) may redirect that application to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Korea, District Korea (C.G.) for compliance of order dated 19.2.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(S) No.1022/2024.

¶33

Accordingly, the MCC stands disposed of.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE

¶36

Ayushi

Smt. Maya Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maya Verma 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manisha Sonwan Vs Ashwani Kumar Bharadwaj

Kailash Kalar (Sinha) Vs Thanu Kalar

Nishant Ahmed Zunjani Vs Narayan Prasad Dewangan

Laxmikant Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdas Vs Smt. Kiran Gandhi

Surendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh