Disposed¶32

Naziya Begum v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2025WPS/637/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed; no merits adjudication. Keywords: WPS No. 637 of 2023; Naziya Begum v. State of Chhattisgarh; Computer Operator; Audhyogik Vriksharopan Mandal, Korba; Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation; daily wages employee; termination/discontinuation letter dated 04.01.2023; COVID-19 lockdown absence; marriage leave; representations undecided; direction to file fresh representation; decide within 90 days; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; 06/08/2025; 2025:CGHC:39329.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to file a fresh representation raising all grievances, and the concerned authorities to decide it in a pragmatic manner within 90 days from production of a copy of the order. ¶32

Naziya Begum Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to continue on the post of Computer Operator and whether the order dated 04.01.2023 discontinuing her engagement should be set aside/quashed. +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation raising all her grievances before the authorities concerned.

¶31

Key takeaways

The concerned authorities were directed to decide the said representation in a pragmatic manner within 90 days from production of a copy of the order; on this basis, and without deciding the merits of the challenge to the order dated 04.01.2023, the writ petition was disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), single Bench (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.), WPS No. 637 of 2023, decided 06/08/2025 — A daily-wage Computer Operator engaged in July 2013 under the Audhyogik Vriksharopan Mandal, Korba, applied for casual leave in August 2020 for her marriage; owing to the COVID-19 lockdown she could not resume duty despite repeated representations, and by letter dated 04.01.2023 she was informed that another person had been engaged in her place and her engagement could not be continued. She approached the High Court seeking continuance on the post and quashing of the letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a direction for consideration of her pending representation, to which respondents had no objection. Without adjudicating the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising all grievances and directing the concerned authorities to decide it in a pragmatic manner within 90 days of production of a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:39329

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 637 of 2023

¶7

1 - Naziya Begum W/o Mohd. Asif Khan Aged About 38 Years R/o New Shanti Vihar, Kalibadi, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Divisional Manager Audhyogik Vriksharopan Mandal, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S. S. Masih, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3	: Mr.Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Advocate.

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

06/08/2025

¶17

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

¶18

reliefs:-

¶19

¶20

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Computer Operator, in accordance with law.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 04.01.2023.

¶22

10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was engaged/appointed in the month of July, 2013 as a Computer Operator under the Audhyogik Vriksharopan Mandal, Korba, District-Korba, and ever since her initial appointment, she had been discharging her duties diligently, sincerely, and to the satisfaction of her superior authorities, without any complaint or stigma. In the month of August, 2020, the petitioner’s marriage was fixed, and for the purpose of solemnizing the same, she applied for casual leave before respondent No. 3. Immediately after her marriage, the petitioner was willing to resume duties; however, in the meantime, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the appropriate government declared a lockdown, resulting in the suspension of operations in both government and non-government offices. The petitioner repeatedly submitted

¶24

¶25

representations requesting permission to resume duty, but no steps were taken by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, vide letter dated 04.01.2023, she was informed that since she had not resumed her duties for a long time, and keeping in view the exigency of work, another person had been engaged in her place and there was no vacant post of Computer Operator, hence it was not possible to continue her engagement on the said post.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Daily Wages Employee and without assigning any reason and without passing any order she has been removed from her services. He further submits that the petitioner has made representations before the concerned authorities which is yet to be decided. He further submits that if a direction may be issued to the concerned respondent authorities to consider her representation in pragmatic manner the purpose of filing this petition will be solved.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of limited prayed made by learned counsel for petitioner, they are having no objection.

¶28

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

¶29

Considering the submissions made by the parties, the petitioner

¶30

¶31

is directed to file a fresh representation raising all her grievances before the authorities concerned and, in turn, the concerned authorities are directed to decide the said representation in a pragmatic manner within a period of 90 days from the production of copy of this order.

¶32

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶34

Raghu Jat

Naziya Begum v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naziya Begum 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

Arun Kumar Sarve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mani Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Paldiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limted Vs Smt. Jana Bai