Atulesh Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 22 Wps/725/2019 ... on 5 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Atulesh Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 22 Wps/725/2019 ... on 5 February, 2019

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                                  1

                                                                                       NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      WPS No. 732 of 2019

             Atulesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 34 Years S/o Shri R.L. Tiwari, R/o
             House No. 56/6, Vidya Bhawan, Dipupara, Bijapur, Tahsil And Police
             Station And District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                              ---Petitioner
                                                  Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of
          Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
          Chhattisgarh.
       2. The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
          Guarantee Scheme, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
       3. The Collector-Cum-District               Coordinatoor     (MNREGA)        Bijapur,
          Chhattisgarh.
       4. The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
       5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhairamgarh, District
          Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ---Respondents

For petitioner : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate.

      For State            :         Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy.G.A.



                         Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                          Order on Board
05/02/2019

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P-1) dated 05.07.2018 whereby the services of the petitioner as contractual employee has been terminated after serving one month notice. Perusal of the record would show that petitioner has not approached the higher authorities before approaching this Court under Article 226.

2. Given the facts, let petitioner file a detailed representation/objection to the respondent No. 2 ventilating his grievance and on such 2 representation/objection being received the Collector is expected to decide the same objectively taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances and on due scrutiny of the papers in the department. It is expected that Collector shall take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. It is relevant at this juncture to mention that the authorities in the department while considering the case/representation of the petitioner shall also take note of the fact that, the Commissioner himself on an earlier occasion vide order dated 06/08/2018 had ordered for consideration of the case of the petitioner for further extension.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

                                                          (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                         JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court