Smt. Kusum Markam vs State Of Chhattisgarh 59 Wps/6983/2018 ... on 24 October, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 9]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Kusum Markam vs State Of Chhattisgarh 59 Wps/6983/2018 ... on 24 October, 2018

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                      1
                                                                           NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   WRIT PETITION (S) NO.6981 OF 2018
     Smt. Kusum Markam Wd/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Markam Aged About
     40 Years R/o Village Gadauroda Post Balco, Block Korba, District - Korba,
     Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ...Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department,
     Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh.
  2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba, District - Korba,
     Chhattisgarh.
  3. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Korba, District - Korba,
     Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24.10.2018

1. The petitioner through the present petition seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner so far as non considering the name of the Husband of the petitioner for absorption as the order of absorption has already been passed by the respondents on 30.06.2018 whereby the persons who were appointed along with the Husband of the petitioner have been absorbed in service.

2. Perusal of records would show that the Husband of the petitioner had expired on 10.03.2018 and by that time the order of absorption had not been published. Any order which has been published by the respondents subsequently and on the date of absorption since the Husband of the petitioner was not alive, the question of absorption of the services of the Husband of the petitioner could not have been passed by the respondents. Thus, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity 2 committed by the respondents in not reflecting the name of the Husband of the petitioner in the order of absorption.

3. The claim so raised for by the petitioner is too hypothetical a case which under the service jurisprudence cannot be entertained.

4. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy Judge inder

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court