Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35868 (CHH)

RANJEET SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5573/2024 · 2025-02-18

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1/2 2025:CGHC:8425 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5573 of 20 24 • Ranjeet Singh S/o Pitamber Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Dodki, Post Chicha, Block- Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipu 2. Under Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur 3. Director Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur -------Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate For Respondent-State: Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judg e ORDER 18/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/ orders and the respondent No. 1, 2, 3 may kindly be directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of one month. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2/2 as Guest Teacher (Physics) since 2019 and he is still working on the said post. He submits that he is claiming salary during course of summer vacation as also medical leave and paternity leave and for the same he has also moved a representation before the respondents authorities vide Annexure P-1 dated 14.06.2024 and is seeking direction to the authorities to consider his representation and decide the same within stipulated time frame. It is also prayed that petitioner may also be given liberty to file a fresh representation and the said representation may be directed to be decided within stipulated time. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that she is having no objection on the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. If petitioner files representation, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the facts of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation before the concerned authorities raising his grievance within a period of 10 days and in turn the authorities are directed to consider and decide the said representation of petitioner within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of representation. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge pwn