^' ^-^". 10- ^°^ v J^'.^^ ^^f?^ ^w\^ ^tlNGLE BEM! -- <2 2zro, w.^;',/'-" <<* .*./' ^ INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARiI AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No,_ SCA-30 /2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 2] 1] 2] 3] 4] Ku. Badadi Sarita, D/o. Badadi Narsaiya, aged about 28 years, R/o. village Uskaled, Tahsil Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur (C.G.) Ku. Banala Lalita, D/o. Banala Malhesh, aged about 23 years, R/o. Madded, Tahsil Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Bhopalpattanam, through its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhopalpattanam, District Bijapur (C.G.) 5] Deputy Collector, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) WRIT PETIT10N UNDER ARTJCLE 226 OF THE _CONST1TUT10N OF INDIA ^''^•s^, />!s- rilUM (JuuKi Ur 1/nriAi IISUAKM : iiijLASr'uS yjnQie Bencn: non oie onri iySaflinQra wionafi i 1 iuNcKa KcSri-'NUcN i S WSJT PcTiuON (S) N0.27sui2u10 r\u. oauaai oai'iia ana ariuuier versus State oi CnhattissatTi and others WRiT rETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONSTiTUTiCN OF INDiA <^i".s-! ^ ^!^-t y-ij-ii 0^.."-^yii!»t'~> f-..-,. !.»-,£->,"i.5 •Fy-iE" •!-I-./-^ i-t.n'y^i-Sf^.-T^s".;. tvitii iwj r tti ui ijjw'o, ^\/uij^lvi i\/i ttii^ p^Ufciwii^i^. iinn v.v.o. i'viuriny, i-'epury ftuvocaie usnerai ror me tsiaie. UrC^L, Ut<U^is< (Passed on 21 June.2010) Thls petition has been iiied by the petiuuners aggiieved oy tne impugned oraer aaiea 'i /'4/'i u (A'nnexure r-i; Dy 'wnicn services OT tne peiiuoners nave Deen terminated along 'vvith other Shiksha Karrni, Grade-iii. 2. Learned counsel for the petitionei's subrnits that simiiariy situated Shiksha i\a!-iTii uraue-iii, s>rni. nniia iaii, aggrievea Dy ine irnpugnea oi'uer aaieu ]/4;2010 approached this Court chaiienging the order of tenriination and on (•"/&?^u'i u, an oraer vras passeu uy" mis L-OUIT: in 'w.r'.(s) No.^3o4fi u (w~ma ian v. Siate of C'.G'. ans others) 'whereln direction was issued to respondenu'Chief Executive Officer to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders without giving eiTect to the order impugned therein. 3. t.earneu counsei Tor tne petitioner subrnits that the cases uf sirnllariy situated empioyees narneiy Anita Tati and others were reconsidered uy respondent / CuieT Executive Officer and they al! have been reinstated In service. y/si:i'-~ 1 •^j^ it is subrfijtted that the peutioner is sirnilariy situateQ as Anlta Tati and others, who vvere terminated from service by impugned order dated i/4/2010. 4. On the other hand, submlssion of learneu counsei for respond6nts Es that inere exisis an aiieiTiauve siaiuiory rerneoy 10 iriQ peuuoner 10 Tiie appeai againsi the termjnation ui'uer uateu 1/4/2010. a. 'i nave neara iearnea counsei ror ine panies ana peruseu ine recoras. 6. Ts.kina into consideratlon that in view of order dated 7"' Mav, 2010 oassed by this Court invv.P.(s) No.2384/10 (Ansta Tau v. State of C.G. and otaers'i, cases of other empioyees were reconsjdered by respondent No.4/Chief Executive Officer and they were reinstateu in service, In the opinion of this Court, instead of uirecting the petitioner to avail rernedy of appeal, it wouiu be appropriate to dlrect respondenVChief Executive Officer to reconsider the case of the petitioner aiso and take appropriate decision in the matter. it wouiu be open JL?^ .* ^*-. - f.*^.^ — — ror ine peiiuoners 10 suurnii represemaiion raising aii sucn grounus as are avaiiable Inciuuing claim of parity" of treatrnent. 7. With the aiores'ald observatlons. ths petltion is finailv disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge