Tejram Kaiwartya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2926 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                                    NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   Writ Petition (S) NO.6016 of 2021

    Tejram Kaiwartya S/o Late Shri Gokul Kaiwartya, aged
    about 61 years, Posted as Assistant Grade­III (Receipt
    Section), R/o. Prabhat Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur
    (CG)
                                                                ­­­­Petitioner

                                     Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department
     of Panchayat and Rural Development, Raipur, Atal Nagar,
     Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)

  2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Zila Panchayat
     Office, Bilaspur (CG)
                                                                ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

27/10/2021

1. Heard Mr.Animesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the respondents / State on the question of

admission of this writ petition.

2. Mr.Animesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, would submit that this is second round of

litigation and earlier order passed by this Court on

30.6.2021 in WPS No.3067 of 2021 has not been complied with

by the respondents and they have not taken any steps for

revoking the order of suspension, for which the petitioner

may be allowed to make a representation as period of 90

days has already been expired and there is no further

suspension in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in

the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India

through its Secretary & Anr.1.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the respondents/State, would submit that the

petitioner's representation qua revocation of suspension

will be considered and decided expeditiously.

4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is suffering from

suspension w.e.f. 2.3.2021, he is allowed to make a

representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from

today. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2

would do well to consider and decide the same in the light

of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay

Kumar Choudhary (supra) within further six weeks from its

receipt and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in

accordance with law. It is made clear this this Court has

not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

5. With the aforesaid observation / direction, the writ

petition finally stands disposed of. No order as to

cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/­

1 (2015) 7 SCC 291