Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sumitra vs State Of Chhattisgarh 77 Wps/2555/2019 ... on 9 April, 2019
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2648 of 2019
Smt. Sumitra W/o Shri Kavichandram Aged About 32 Years Pesa -
Sweepar, Nivasi - Gram Jamdei, Vikas Khand Surajpur, Jila -
Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv, Aadim Jati Thatha
Anusuchit Jati, Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Aayukt Aadim Jati Thatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Raipur Jila Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Sahayak Aayukt Aadiwasi Vikas Surajpur, Jila Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector Karyalaya Collector Aadiwasi Vikas Surajpur, Jila Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
5. Jila Shiksha Adhikari Surajpur Jila Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. R.K Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
09/04/2019
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner (Part Time Sweeper working in a school in district Surajpur whose service has been discontinued.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the large number of similarly situated Part-Time Sweepers were discontinued from service and they had filed petitions before this Court. All those petitions were disposed off by a common order dated 09.09.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is identically situated as the petitioners in those petitions, because the petitioner herein was also Part-Time Sweepers appointed in school 2 in the same district i.e. Surajpur and on similar consideration which weighed at the time of termination of petitioners in above referred petitions, the present petitioner was also discontinued from service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Part-Time Sweepers are low rank employees and very meagerly paid. Therefore, in these circumstances, this petition may be finally disposed off with a direction to respondents to examine her case on parity and similar relief may be granted to the petitioner.
4. In this petition filed by Part-Time Sweeper working in school in the same district where the petitioners were also working as Part-Time Sweepers, this Court had an occasion to examine the correctness of decision taken by the authority towards enmass termination of Part-Time Sweepers. The reasons assigned for enmass termination, as reflected in the case of "Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors." and batch of petitions, show that the appointments were illegally made by wrongly construing and interpreting direction of the State Govt. This Court after hearing the parties, held as below:
"7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it would appear that even if the respective principals/head masters were not informed or authorized to make appointment, the fact remains that the State Government had earlier issued communications to the effect that thereis no restriction for appointing part time sweepers. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners were infact appointed by the respective principals/head masters prior to issuance of the 3 order (Annexure-P-1) and the order (Annexure-P-7). Once the appointments have been made, even on part time basis, mass cancellation of appointments, without there being any specific individual allegation of corruption or nepotism is not permissible. At the same time, if any part time sweeper is not attending duties as he belongs to some other village or is otherwise not efficient in his work, it always remains open for the concerned head of the department or the appointing authority to initiate action, as the petitioners have no right to hold the post, being only part time sweepers."
5. Prima facie this petitioner also seem to be affected by the enmass termination while working in the same district and on similar consideration.
6. The petitioner, therefore, would also be entitled to similar benefits if her case is similarly situated as the case of those petitioners who had earlier approached this Court and in whose favour, common order was passed on 09.09.2015.
7. In view of the above consideration, respondent -Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Surajpur, shall examine the case of the petitioner and verify facts. If this petitioner is similarly situated like the petitioners in earlier batch of petitions, which was decided on 09.09.2015, the benefits which have accrued to those petitioners and as ordered by this Court earlier in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar (supra) shall also be granted to this petitioner.
8. Considering that the petitioner is very low-paid employee, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surajpur, shall complete the 4 exercise within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. If the petitioner's grievance is not redressed/fully redressed, she will be at liberty to revive the petition.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge jyoti