Allowed

Pushpa Bai v. Commissioner

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2025REVP/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against an earlier order adjusting a respondent as Aanganbadi worker in another village within the same block. The court found an apparent error on the face of the record and modified paragraph 15 to direct adjustment of the applicant (not respondent No. 5) within the same block of District Balod.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph 15 of order dated 02.12.2024 modified to substitute 'applicant' for 'respondent No. 5' and 'same block' for 'other village'.

Pushpa Bai Vs Commissioner — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12138

¶3

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

REVP No. 11 of 2025

¶7

Pushpa Bai W/o Khomlal, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Chendriban Nawagaon, Tehsil Dondilohara, Civil and Revenue District Balod (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Commissioner Durg, Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

¶11

2 - Upper Collector Balod, District Balod (C.G.).

¶12

3 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.).

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Smt. Punita Bai Patel W/o Santlal Patel aged about 44 years, R/o Village Chendriban Nawagaon, Tehsil Dondilohara, Civil and Revenue District Balod (C.G.)

¶15


For Applicant	:	Mr.P.R.Patankar,Advocate.
For State	:	Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A.
For RespondentNo. 5.	:	Mr. ShikharBhaktiyar,Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,J.

Order on Board

11.03.2025

The applicant has filed this review petition seeking review of order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No. 5452 of 2014.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant who is the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition had filed the writ petition for seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

A. That,this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 02.12.2024 and (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice.

¶23

B. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not to disturb the petitioner from her place of posting.

¶24

C. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this Court while disposing the writ petition (WPS No. 5452 of 2014) with a direction to the State/respondent authorities to issue appropriate order adjusting the respondent No. 5 to work as Aanganbadi worker or on equivalent post in other village within same block of District Balod. The State/respondent authorities did not consider the fact that in para 15 of the order, in place of ‘respondent No. 5’ it would be “applicant” and in place of ‘other village’ it would be “same block” . therefore, the order dated 02.12.2024 may be modified/reviewed.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that this review petition filed by the applicant is without any merit and the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any apparent error in the order dated 02.12.2024. So, this review petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned order dated 02.12.2024.

¶29

It is apparent that while passing the impugned order dated 02.12.2024, this Court observed in para 15 as under :-

¶30

“15. In the instant case also, the petitioner has been working since 2014 and it is clear that State/respondent authorities have admitted this fact due to some error, entry of caste certificate of respondent No. 5 could not be made by the office and she has caste certificate since 2010. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 now aged more than 40 years. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner was aged around 34 years and respondent No. 5 is beneficiary of the order passed by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, in the light of order passed by this Court in Anita Bai (supra), the petitioner is allowed to continue to work as Aanganbadi Worker in Aanganwadi Centre at village Nawagaon, Bhitarpara, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod and the State/respondent authorities are directed to issue appropriate order adjusting the respondent No. 5 to work as Aanganbadi worker or on equivalent post in other village within same block of District Balod. The exercise with regard to issue of appointment order be carried out within 45 days from the order of this Court.”

¶31

So, it is apparent on the face of record which needs to be rectified and paragraph 15 of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed in WPS No. 5452 of 2014 is modified to the extent indicated herein as under :-

¶32

“15. The State/respondent authorities are directed to issue appropriate order adjusting the applicant to work

¶33

¶34

as Aanganbadi worker or on equivalent post within same block of District Balod.

¶35

The review petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Rest of the part of order dated 02.12.2024 passed in WPS No. 5452 of 2014 shall remain intact.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

U.K. Raju

Pushpa Bai v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Bai v. Commissioner

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

Shri Hanuman Sharma Vs P.K. Dalal and Company

Krishna Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishambharnath Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Madhu Kant Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Verma Vs Rati Ram Vishwakarma

Mamta Devata Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.