1 - Loknath Sahu S/o Late Shyam Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2025:CGHC:4831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2991 of 2022 1 - Loknath Sahu S/o Late Shyam Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Chandra Shekhar Ward No. 13, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 2992 of 2022 1 - Jyoti Payam D/o Shri P. Reddy Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Golapalli, Tahsil - Konta, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukum, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 2994 of 2022 1 - Raghuraj Baghel S/o Shri Kamal Baghel, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil And District Sukma (Chhattisgarh), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 2995 of 2022 1 - Kanchan D/o Shri Lachmaiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Bagichapara, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner 3 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 2996 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Ramkumari Khare W/o Shri Saituram Khare, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 2997 of 2022 1 - Gopal Yadav S/o Shri Lakhnuram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post- Tongpal, Tahsil - Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner 4 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Rhrough The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribe Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3002 of 2022 1 - Maniram Kashyap S/o Shri Bhikhariram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chipurpal, Post Pakela, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3003 of 2022 1 - Rohit Sinha S/o Shri S.R. Sinha, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) 5 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3005 of 2022 1 - Hiresh Thakur S/o Shri Subatram Thakur, Aged About 31 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Para, Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3006 of 2022 1 - Parwati Sodi W/o Shri Rajuram Sodi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Urmapal, Post Rokel, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 6 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3007 of 2022 1 - Mellam Rajkumar S/o Late Venkteshwar Rao Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post Kontra, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Aministration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3008 of 2022 1 - Dinesh Sinha S/o Shri Mahadev Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kindarwada, Post- Pushpal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 7 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3009 of 2022 1 - Vivek Bhushan Sori S/o Shri Santram Sori Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Pakela, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3010 of 2022 1 - Dinuram Bhandari S/o Shri Motisingh Bhandari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Rokel, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District-Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 8 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3011 of 2022 1 - Meera Rana W/o Shri Dronacharya Rana Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanu Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3012 of 2022 1 - Vanjam Dulah S/o Shri Vanjam Bhima Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Punpalli, Post Dubbatota, Tahsil- Konta, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --Petitioner Versus 9 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3013 of 2022 1 - Smt. Genda Washnikar W/o Shri S.S. Washnikar, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Tongpal, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3014 of 2022 10 1 - Mallika Kashyap S/o Shri Chamruram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pujaripal, Post- Chhindgarh, Tahsil- Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3015 of 2022 1 - Madkami Deva S/o Shri Madkami Kosa Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Mekhavaya, Post Urmapal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3016 of 2022 11 1 - Manisha Padami W/o Shri Hidmaram Padami Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Reddipal, Post Chhindgarh, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3017 of 2022 1 - Laxman Rao S/o Late Papaiya Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Bhejji, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 12 WPS No. 3018 of 2022 1 - Kamlesh Manjhi S/o Shri Sukman Manjhi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rati Naikras, Post Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3019 of 2022 1 - Manita Sodi D/o Shri Lakkha Sodi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.4, Sheetala Ward, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3020 of 2022 1 - Krishna Kumar Nag S/o Shri Pandruram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3021 of 2022 1 - Gangaram Sodi S/o Shri Devaram Sodi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ganjenar, Post Kodripal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3022 of 2022 1 - Dudhi Hitesh S/o Shri Dudhi Erra Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post - Gadiras (Tamiyapara), Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3023 of 2022 1 - Kawasi Sunita D/o Shri Kawasi Lakhma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Penta, Post- Dornapal, Sukma, Tahisl Konta, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 15 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3025 of 2022 1 - Mannu Kumar Nag S/o Shri Lakhanram Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Tongpal Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 5 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 7 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents 16 WPS No. 3026 of 2022 1 - Vetti Masa S/o Shri Vetti Mukka Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dodpal, Post Korra, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department,mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukam Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3027 of 2022 1 - Tulsiram Markam S/o Shri Gangaram Markam Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Rajamunda, Borgapara, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 17 WPS No. 3028 of 2022 1 - Jitendra Dhruw S/o Shri Belsingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Patelpara, Post Tongpal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretay, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department,mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukam Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3029 of 2022 1 - Vetti Nurani D/o Late Shri Vetti Kanna, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dondra And Post Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department,mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukam Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 18 WPS No. 3042 of 2022 1 - Mousam Mangla W/o Late Shri Mousam Buchcha, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Dondra, Post- Konta, Tahsil - Konta, District - Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3043 of 2022 1 - Bhime Kunjam D/o Late Gangaram Kunjam Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretry Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 19 WPS No. 3052 of 2022 1 - Mamta Juresiya D/o Shri D.R. Juresiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Ramaram, Tahsil Sukma,, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3055 of 2022 1 - Sukhram Nag S/o Shri Mahadev Nag, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chipurapal, Post Pakela, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department,mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 20 WPS No. 3065 of 2022 1 - Pramila Sahu D/o Shri Kailash Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Patnampara, Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3068 of 2022 1 - Sukkam Nag D/o Shri Budhram Nag Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chipurpal Post Pakela, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 21 WPS No. 3077 of 2022 1 - Laxmi Nag S/o Shri Lachchiram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Atkariras, Post Bhandarras, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Cast Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, Distt. Sukma (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3084 of 2022 1 - K. Geeta Rao D/o Shri Rataiya Rao, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Patnampara, Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Case Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 22 WPS No. 2807 of 2022 1 - Sodi Deva S/o Sodi Hunga, Aged About 34 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Para, Nagar Panchayat Konta, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Sukma, District Sukma (Chhattisgarh), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 3063 of 2022 1 - Sunita Nag D/o Shri Laxminath Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Kundanpal Tahsil Chhindgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 23 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 27.01.2025
Decision
1. The bunch of these writ petitions is being disposed off by this common order as the issue involved in all the writ petitions are identical and similar and this order will adjudicate the entire bunch of the writ petitions. 2. The petitioners, by ways of their individual petitions, are challenging the order No.1346 dated 03.11.2024 passed by the Collector, District, Sukma whereby the appointment of the petitioners have been challenged vide order No.1374 dated 31.08.2017 leading to discrimination in respect of the order No.1388 dated 31.08.2017. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have sought the following reliefs which are near-about identical in all the writ petitions:- 24 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for quashing the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Collector District Sukma, and declare the discrimination on the part of the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for equal treatment of petitioner like Grade-IV regular employees in initial orders issued in the year 2013 and orders dated 31.08.2017 and seniority be reckoned from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), and imposed the cost upon respondents, which may deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case as projected by all the writ petitioners is like that the Collector, District Sukma has issued an advertisement dated 01.06.2012 for recruitment for the vacant posts of Grade-IV employees of different offices within the District Sukma as per the guidelines of the State Government in respect of pay-scale, Dearness Allowances and other applicable remuneration in the prescribed form. According to the said advertisement, there were total 60 vacant posts of Grade-IV employees (Peons) and on the said basis, several persons have applied for the post of peon along with the present writ petitioners. Since, there were only 60 vacant posts available, as such, a select list was prepared on the 25 basis of marks obtained by the concerned aspirants. Accordingly, 60 persons were given regular appointment on the post of Peon on the 60 vacant posts, however, there were other candidates also who had been selected but since, vacant posts were not available, they were on waiting list and later on, they were considered and were appointed as contingency paid employee (contingency post of Peon). The present petitioners are those persons who were appointed on the contingency post in excess of 60 vacant posts of peon. The persons who were selected and appointed on the 60 vacant posts of Peon were being given benefit of regular employee, but, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are not being given benefits of regular employee as they are not being considered as regular employee, whereas, they are being considered as contingency paid employee. 4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions are that when they were selected on the basis of same advertisement issued by the Collector, District Sukma dated 01.08.2012 and they were fulfilling the requisite qualification to be recruited on the post of Peon, then, there may not be any discrimination in giving status to them. The 60 persons were being given benefit of regular employee and are getting more benefits though the mode of selection and recruitment process is one and same ; they are on same footing at par with the 60 persons who were being given benefit of regular employee. The 26 petitioners are being treated differently than that of 60 Peons who were recruited on regular post, as such, the petitioners are being discriminated which is in violation of Articles 14,16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are also required to be treated equally at par with the 60 Peons who have been given benefit of regular employees and are getting much more benefits and facilities as also the pay-scale and other benefits are not equal to them. The petitioners are getting salary of contingency paid employee which is of Rs.10,700/- per month, whereas the other selected 60 regular Peons were getting pay-scale of Rs.4,750-7,440/- + 1,300/-G.P. When the petitioners as well as the other regular 60 Peons were employed on the same footing, then the authorities ought to have given same benefit to all of them and they are required to be equally treated without there being any discrimination. The relief as prayed by the petitioners are genuine and reasonable and they are required to be granted equal treatment. The petitioners have submitted that earlier also, they have preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.92/2021 in which they have raised their grievance upon which this Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and redressed their grievance by directing the competent respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7.Let the District Collector, District Sukma pass an order afresh touching the aforesaid 27 issues within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner herein also would have the liberty to approach the District Collector by way of a fresh representation supported with all relevant documents and records in his possession in respect of his respective stand, which shall also be duly considered by the District Collector by deciding the issue.” 5. It is further submitted by the petitioners that on the basis of said direction issued by this Court, the petitioners have approached before the authorities concerned, however, the authorities concerned have not considered their grievance and their representation was also rejected vide order dated 03.11.2021, as such, the petitioners have approached before this Court challenging the order dated 03.11.2021 with a prayer that while quashing the said order dated 03.11.2021, the petitioners may be treated equally and similarly at par with the other 60 Peons who were selected and accommodated by the respondent authorities as regular Peon and are being given benefits of regular employee. The petitioners have further prayed that they may also be given equal treatment as other 60 Peons are getting by considering them as regular employee from the date of their initial employment i.e. 31.08.2017. 6. The respondents have filed their return in which they have 28 categorically submitted that after in the advertisement itself, there are only 60 vacant posts available for appointment on the post of Peon on regular basis. The rest of the appointments which have been made were made on the basis of waiting list, for which no vacant posts are available. It has been specifically contended by them that the petitioners in the bunch of these writ petitions were accommodated while taking a lenient approach and they cannot seek regularization or benefit of regular pay-scale at par with the other 60 Peons who have been appointed on the vacant 60 seats. It was further contended by the respondent authorities that whenever vacant post would be available, the present petitioners would also be accommodated and they will be given benefit of regular pay-scale, however, at present, since there are no vacant seats available, as such, the petitioners are being treated as contingency paid employees and are being given salary applicable to the contingency paid employee. It has been specifically submitted by the respondent State authorities that the petitioners will be given every chance and their case will be considered for grant of regularization and regular pay-scale whenever vacant seats would be available. But, at present, they cannot be considered for grant of regularization as well as regular pay-scale at par with the other 60 Peons who were appointed on vacant seats. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are discriminating the petitioners while not giving 29 benefits of regular employees at par with the other 60 Peons who have been appointed and are being given benefit of regularization as well as regular pay-scale. Once the petitioners as well as the other persons were appointed on the same footing then the respondents cannot treat the petitioners differently. The respondent authorities are treating the petitioners in a very discriminating manner which is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, being poor persons who were being given salary and other benefits of contingency paid employees, are facing great hardship and they are hardly managing their day to day affairs, as such, a direction is required to be issued to the respondent authorities while quashing the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 by which the representations of the petitioners were rejected. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has categorically submitted that all the other 60 Peons were appointed on the vacant seats on the basis of their merits and in the advertisement also, only 60 vacant seats were stated to be available. The petitioners are being accommodated on the basis that they have competed in the waiting list. The petitioners are not having any right to claim for the benefit of regular employee as they were appointed in excess to the 60 Peons against the 60 regular posts declared in the advertisement, in fact, they are not required to be appointed as they were in the waiting list, however, the respondent authorities have sympathetically considered the 30 candidature of the petitioners and they were appointed even though vacant seats were not available. Accordingly, the petitioners are not having any case and much more, they cannot claim any relief as prayed by them in this bunch of writ petitions. Therefore, all the writ petitions being devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed in the threshold as they have not been selected for the 60 vacant seats. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have taken due care while considering the documents appended with all the writ petitions. 10. From perusal of the advertisement as well as the order passed in respect of 60 employees, it is quite vivid that only 60 posts of regular Peons were available, however, after appointing those 60 persons on merit basis, when the other persons are found to be fit and available, the respondent authorities without rejecting their candidature has decided to accommodate the petitioners while declaring them to be contingency paid employees and giving them the benefit of contingency paid employee. It was not the case of the petitioners that inspite of availability of vacant posts, they are being treated differently and are not being posted on regular basis after giving regular pay- scale but it was the case of the petitioners that 60 vacant posts were available and they were being considered in excess of 60 seats. True it is, the respondent State authorities have advertised only 60 posts of Peon, however, it is equally true that inspite of 31 the said fact the services of the petitioners were taken and from the waiting list they were appointed, as such, it is obligatory upon the respondent authorities also to treat the petitioners reasonably and to give them benefit of regularization as well as regular pay- scale. When in the first round, the petitioners have approached before this Court, this Court has directed the respondent authorities especially the Collector, District Sukma to consider the case of the petitioners while stating that a different set of employee from the same recruitment process are being granted employment on regular basis under the State Government, however, in respect of the petitioners a different treatment is being given to them. The petitioners are low paid employees, most of them have been employed for a considerable period, they are having various liabilities and in the present scenario, it is very difficult for them to manage their day to day affairs. Also, I have been told that a very meager amount to the tune of Rs.10,700/- is being given to them which cannot be said to be an amount in which a person can run his family smoothly. The petitioners have waited a lot and right from the beginning, they are approaching this Court for redressal of their grievances, however, the grievance of the petitioners are yet to be redressed. Though, the respondents are ready and willing to accommodate the petitioners, however, from the acts of the respondent authorities, it seems that they are not taking any action seriously in order to accommodate petitioners on the regular basis and to grant them 32 regular pay-scale. 11. In the aforesaid facts and scenario of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to get the sanctioned post available while making request to the State Government and the State Government is obliged to create posts of Peon and if the vacancies are not available for the petitioners in the near future then to give preference to the petitioners to accommodate them on the regular basis in near future. The respondent State authorities are further directed not to issue vacancy of any regular post of Peon till the petitioners are accommodated so that the petitioners may not be deprived from their genuine and reasonable grievance. This Court hope and trust that the respondent authorities would take every endeavor for getting the petitioners accommodated on the regular post while creating regular vacant posts whenever available. 12. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction, all the writ petitions are hereby disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha