BHUNESHWARI THAKUR v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI SHIKSHA MISSION BOARD OFFICE
WPS/9309/2022 · 2026-04-30
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13385 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13385 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:20466
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9309 of 2022 Bhuneshwari Thakur W/o Shri Tameshwar Thakur Aged About 43 Years Magarlod, Post Magarlod District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner versus 1 - The Managing Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission Board Office Composite Building 2nd Floor, Pension Bada, Raipur , Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector And Mission Director Samagra Shiksha, Dhamtari , District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Mission Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Kasturba Gandhi Residential School, Bhaismudi, Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/05/2026
1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working under the respondents since 2013 on the post of Chowkidar. He would further submit that the petitioner went on leave in the month of March,
2 2022 and when she approached the respondent authorities, she was not permitted to join her services. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent No.3 and, in turn, respondent No.3 may be directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
3. Heard.
4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.3 and, in turn, respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE Nadim