C. R. Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:36791

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1223 of 2019

¶6

1 - C. R. Masih S/o Shri Milan Masih Aged About 63 Years R/o Jarhabhata, Bandhiyapara, Ward No. 9, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 – Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur, Circle, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

29/07/2025

¶14

This case has been short listed for referral to the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation for the Nation.

¶15

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that there is no chance of settlement between the parties in the instant petition. Hence, this case is not referred for mediation in Mediation Drive -Mediation for the

¶16

2

¶17

Nation.

¶18

With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶19

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“A. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the impugned order dated 01.12.2018 (vide Annexure P/12) issued by the Superintendent Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur Circle, i.e., Respondent No.3 and further direct the respondent authority to immediately pay the impressed/ reimbursement amount to the petitioner since 2009 to till date.

¶21

B. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent authority to produce the entire records showing payment of impressed amount as mentioned in the impugned order dated 01.12.2018.

¶22

C. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the State Government to initiate the enquiry in respect of disbursement of the impressed amount of the State Government as to whether the said amount has been actually paid to the eligible employees/ labors or not?

¶23

D. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to direction issued by State Government, the concerned authority of respondent Department / respondent No.4 had issued the order and allotted site/ 34 villages for maintenance of hand-pumps to the petitioner. For the said work, village Gorhkhami PHE, block Lormi was fixed as headquarter and now the headquarter Deverhat is fixed for maintenance of hand-pumps of other 27 villages. He further submits that in pursuance of order of respondent Authority, petitioner performed

¶25

3

¶26

his duties for maintenance of hand-pumps from years 2009 to 2018, for which he had also engaged labors. After performing his work he had filed vouchers for reimbursement of amount, but, no reimbursement was made by the respondent Authority, therefore, petitioner filed WPS No.4126/2018 before this Court and vide order dated 25.6.2018 (Annnexure P8), the said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was directed to decide the same objectively in accordance with the rules governing the field within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter, petitioner had moved representation (Annexure P9) dated 10.7.2018 for redressal of his grievance, which had been dismissed by respondent Authority vide order dated 01.12.2018 (Annexure P/12). He would further submit that all the vouchers submitted by the petitioner have not been reimbursed by the respondent Authority, therefore, they may be directed to reimburse the amount of the petitioner since 2009 till filling of the instant petition, as has been prayed for.

¶27

Learned State counsel while referring to his reply, would submit that petitioner was entrusted work of maintenance of hand-pumps, for which he had submitted vouchers for reimbursement and in pursuance of those vouchers, petitioner had been reimbursed all the amount from October, 2009 to June, 2018 vide Annexure R1 (Colly). He would further submit that no voucher is left to be reimbursed to the petitioner, hence, the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

¶28

I have considered the facts of the case and taken into consideration submission putforth by both the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

4

¶30

When specific question was asked to learned counsel for the petitioner that vouchers of which particular month/ year are yet to be reimbursed by the respondent Authority, he could not apprise the Court about the aforesaid fact. It has also not been submitted by the petitioner, in tabular form, indicating vouchers of particular month/ year left to be reimbursed by the respondent Authority, in his petition and only on the basis of vague pleading, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. No specific pleading has been made to understand the fact that how many vouchers were submitted by the petitioner and how many of them are reimbursed by the respondent Authority, as it has been mentioned in Annexure R1 that from October, 2009 to June, 2018 all the impressed/ reimbursed amount has been paid to petitioner. Since pleading is vague, I do not feel inclined to entertain the instant petition.

¶31

In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby disposed of. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to file representation before the respondent Authority to redress his grievance by specifying the facts in tabular form, indicating vouchers which are yet to be reimbursed by the respondent Authority.

¶32

10.In view of above, pending IA(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) JUDGE

¶35

Ayushi

¶36

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.08.01 11:08:22 +0530

C. R. Masih v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. R. Masih 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Madhu Ukey Vs State Bank of India

S. Laxmi Nirmala Deep @ S. Laxmi Nirmala Vs S. Vijay Kumar

Ashwani Kumar Manher Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Devendra Kumar Vs Smt. Sindhu Baghel @ Payal

Sachin Agrawal Vs Government of India

Ashok Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh