Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24318 (CHH)

SMT. SEEMA AGRAWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/4051/2025 · 2025-06-11

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:23655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4051 of 2025 1 - Smt. Seema Agrawal W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Siddhant Computers, Bakshi Road Ward No. 8 Khairagarh, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Public Instructions Education, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Education Officer Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For State : Shri Suyash Dhar, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 12.06. 202 5 1. The limited prayer made by the petitioner in this petition is for a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide her departmental appeal filed on 21/23.07.2024 (Annexure P/10) which is still pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 the services of the petitioner has been terminated and she was dismissed from the post of Assistant Teacher (LB). Her termination order was challenged by way of departmental 2 appeal under Rule 10(8) of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on 21/23.07.2024 before the respondent No.2, however till date no order has been passed on her departmental appeal. Therefore, the respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to decide her appeal within a reasonable period. 3. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel for the State. 4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on 21/23.07.2024 (Annexure P/10) on its own merits preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder