1 2025:CGHC:40989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5691 of 2021 Soniya Singh W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Qtr No. M I G (Standard) 275, Phasee I, Kabir Nagar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Village Koyalibeda, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Head Master Primary School, Markanar, P. O. Koyalibeda, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 5 - Sarpanch Village Panchayat Tursani, Tehsil Pankhanjur, P. O. Koyalibeda, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner by the respondents. ii. That, the respondents be directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a stipulated time. iii. That, the petition may be allowed and the Respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to join in the post she was earlier before taking leave. iv. That, any other relief deemed to be fit sought by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-III at Primary School Murnar, Koyaladiah on 12.10.1995. He would contend that the petitioner remained on maternity leave from 13.12.1999 to 12.03.2000. Thereafter, she applied for child care leave on 13.03.2000 and sought to resume her services on 02.06.2016, but she was not permitted to join by the respondent authorities. He would also submit that the petitioner made representations before the respondent authorities, but till date no decision has been taken; thus, he submits that a direction may be 3 issued to the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation, if any, made by the petitioner will be considered and decided in accordance with law by the respondent authorities. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by the petitioner, at this juncture, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondents within a period of 30 days and in turn, the respondent authorities are directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim