1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 82 of 2022 1 - Smt. Kavita Paikra W/o Shri Sahdev Paikra Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tainya, Post Salka, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Tribal Development Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The District Education Officer Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Block Education Officer Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None appears even in two rounds For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of part time sweeper in posting place. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P(S) no.2067/2020. 10.3 Any other reliefs may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) It is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Sweeper at Government Primary School Tainya, Block-Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur 2 (C.G.) vide order dated 28.12.2012. Subsequently, her services were discontinued. The petitioner has pleaded that identical petitions were decided by this Court, wherein, a direction was issued to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Surajpur to examine the matter and take appropriate decision. The petitioner has sought for similar direction in this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the services of the petitioner were discontinued sometimes in the year 2012, whereas, this petition has been filed in the year 2022 and thus, relief sought in this petition is hit by the principle of delay and laches. 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Taking into consideration the relief sought for in this writ petition, this petition at this juncture is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to examine and verify the case of the petitioner and take appropriate decision as the petitioner, who was working on the post of Part Time Sweeper, is very low paid employee. The exercise shall be completed by the said authority within a period of 90 days from the date of presentation of copy of this order. 6) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha