Smt. Kishori Mishra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2452

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.03 10:48:44 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 115 of 2022

¶7

1 - Smt. Kishori Mishra W/o Shri Bablu Mishra Aged About 34 Years Presently Working As Ward Aaya, Jeevan Deep Samiti, In Community Health Centre Manendragarh, District Korea, R/o Ward No. 19, Behind F.C.I. Godown, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Director Department Of Health And Family Welfare , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Collector Korea , District Korea Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District Korea Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Manendragarh, District Korea Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Abishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

15/01/2025

¶23

Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Abishek Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s.

¶24

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

¶25

“10.1. It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the Respondent Authorities for its kind perusal.

¶26

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus thereby to direct the Respondent No.3 to 6 to provide the petitioner honorarium as per the prevailing collector rates.

¶27

10.3. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner .”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Ward Aaya, under the Jeevan Deep Samiti,

¶29

3

¶30

in Community Health Centre Manendragarh District- Korea, in year 2007 vide order issued by the Respondent Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Manengragarh and since then the petitioner is continuously working on the aforesaid post with utmost dedication and honesty. The petitioner is holding the certificates of her academic education namely class 10th and 12th and therefore, she is eligible to get the honorarium as per the collector rates. Since the date of appointment to the present date the petitioner is being given honorarium of Rs. 3300/- per month while any candidate who have been engaged under any establishment under the State Government would be entitled for getting honorarium as per collector rates as from the date of appointment of the petitioner is continuously working as Ward Aaya, in the Jeevan Deep Samiti, Community Health Centre Manendragarh District-Korea and the work of Ward Aaya is to assist the nurses during watching patients. Thus, the service of the petitioner would come under the purview of unskilled labour. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in virtue of the order dated 18.03.2021 issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner Raipur, the Respondent Collector District- KoreaBaikunthpur issued an order dated 11.04.2021 for fixation of payment of monthly salary to skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled labourers/employees with effect from 01.04.2021. (ANNEXURE P/4). As such, the Petitioner made representations dated 14.06.2021 before the Respondent Collector Korea-Baikunthpur

¶31

4

¶32

as well as Respondent Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korea for grant of benefit of the payment of honorarium as per the prevailing collector rates. Further, the Petitioner has also made representations dated 16.06.2021 before the Respondent Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Manendragarh as well as the Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manendragarh who is also the vice-president of the Jeevan Deep Samiti, Community Health Centre Manendragarh for grant of benefit of the payment of honorarium as per the prevailing collector rates. Despite of various representations made by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 to 6 are not taking any action upon the representations of the petitioner in respect of granting benefit of the payment of honorarium as per the prevailing collector rates.

¶33

On the other hand learned State counsel appearing for respondent authorities has not opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Considering that the submission made by the petitioner is fair and reasonable and it is also in accordance with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.8184 of 2018 (Krishna Chand Nayak vs State of Chhattisgarh) wherein it is ordered as below :

¶36

“4. The order of appointment of the petitioners show that they were appointed as Part Time Sweeper in the

¶37

5

¶38

year 2011 on wages applicable in case of Part Time Sweeper, on collector rates. Therefore, if the collector wages have been revised, the case of the petitioners is also required to be considered for grant of appropriate and existing minimum wages prescribed by the Collector. Accordingly, the petitioners' case should also be considered and appropriate orders in their case should be passed by the respondent No.4 for grant of appropriate wages, according to current rate of wages applicable to the category of employment, in which the petitioners are employed.”

¶39

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the petitioners' case should also be considered and appropriate orders in her case should be passed by the respondent authorities for grant of appropriate wages, according to current rate of wages applicable to the category of employment, in respect of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶40

Accordingly, this petition is allowed .

¶41

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶42

Ravi Mandavi

Smt. Kishori Mishra v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kishori Mishra v. the 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

Bhuneshwar Porte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Inayat Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Punit Ram Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parasram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukhlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Das Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh