Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kalpana vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2497 of 2021
1. Smt. Kalpana Wd/o Late Sheelbhadra Singh Satyarthi Aged About 55
Years R/o Near J.J. Hospital Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Sourabh Singh Satyarthi S/o Late Sheelbhadra Singh Aged About 27
Years R/o Near J.J. Hospital Torwa, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Conservator of Forest Durg Circle, Durg Chhattisgarh.
3. Divisional Forest Officer Kawardha District Kabirdham.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Forest,
Vallabha Bhavan Bhopal (M.P.).
---Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
17.06.2021
1. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding
the representation initially moved by the deceased late Sheelbhadra Singh
Satyarthi and also not deciding the representation moved by the present
petitioners after death of the deceased employee, the present writ petition
has been filed.
2. The facts of the case is that, the Husband of petitioner No.1 and the
Father of petitioner No.2 was working as an Assistant Forest Conservator
under the respondents. He was involved in a criminal case under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, PC Act). The
Special Court (PC Act), Rajnandgaon, found the employee guilty of the
charges and and convicted him vide judgment dated 20.01.2003. The
conviction of the employee was subjected to challenge by way of a
Criminal Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2003. The said appeal
stood allowed in favour of the appellant-employee and the judgment of
conviction dated 20.01.2003 was set aside/quashed and the employee
was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
3. Subsequent to his getting acquitted, the employee immediately
approached the respondents State for recalling of the order of termination
and restoring him back in service vide his representation dated
18.02.2020.
4. However, pending consideration of the representation the employee
expired on 19.09.2020 in a road accident. Thereafter, the present
petitioners i.e. widow and son of the deceased employee approached the
respondents by way of a fresh representation dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure
P/4) requesting the respondents to take appropriate decision in
accordance with provisions of law at the earliest recalling the order of
termination and for grant of consequential benefits that the widow and son
would otherwise be entitled for in the light of acquittal in the criminal case.
Inspite of representation being pending for 8-9 months, there is no
decision on those representations which has led to the filing of the present
writ petition.
5. The State counsel submits that since the representations are still pending
consideration, the writ petition be disposed of directing the respondents
No.1,2&4 to take appropriate decision on the representation
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. The respondents
No.1,2&4, as the case may be, are directed to take appropriate decision
on the representation that the petitioners have made at the earliest
preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
7. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise the respondent
No.4 so far as order passed by this court is concerned. Upon intimation to
the respondent No.4, it is expected that they shall take a decision at the
earliest in terms of the observations made in the preceding paragraph.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
