\ r^j^r^ ^"••^JJT^T' f^JT ^J-SJ^ A TrT'?£i^iA X>?J A T' JSJJ A €?I>?TTS tlltjjt'l t-U'JKl' 'Ur t-'flilAl'l iStjAKIl AI tilLASi'UK WRIT PETITION fS) No. PETITIONES Arjun Das Manikpuri, Soa of Shri Gqjola Manikpuri, aged aboul 40 years, Panchayat Karmi/Secretar'.', PancliaYat-Bausurkuli, Jaapad Pancliavat Bhilaigarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) • VES.SUS RESPONDENTS : 1. StaSs of Chhaitisgarh, Througli: The Secretary, Paachavat and social Welfare Department, D.K.S. ilaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The CoUecfor, District-Raipiir (C.G.) arpancfc, Village- 3. Gram Paachayat, tlir' Baiisuikuli, Jaapad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Ramashanker Patel, Aged 26 yeai~s- Village - Bansuriculi, Janpad Pasichayat Bhilaigarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTlQN QEINL'lA SB: Hoa'ble Sla-i Sstisfa K. Agm]]gM^J; n- ^:~s. it: Shi'i Saadsep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. . Shri U.N.S.Deo, Govemment Advocate fbr the respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate fbr the rsspondent No. 3. Shri R.M.Pandev, Advocate forthe respondent No. 4. OSAL (Pa-ssed on 04U' day of Januarv-, 2008) 1. This case was a&iiitted on 14.12.2006 and notices were issued to •&e respoiideiris. Thereafter, the matter was taken up fbr hearing on 25.04.2007. At the request of leamed couusel appearmg fbr the rsspondents, four weeks time was graiited to file retum. Oii i9.09.2007, time was again granted to the respondents to file reuim. It was made clear m the ordsr dated 19.09.2007 that by the next date of heariiig, if the retura/reply is not filed, ihe matter would be heard finally by the Court. P^eply b;.'' the respond^iits has not been filed till date. 2. Leanied counsel appearing for the pstitioiier submits that the similarly placed employees ffled W.P..NO. 3125/2005. This Court, after having considered, aQmvsd ibs petitioa with a dircction to allow the petitioner tlisrsiii .to ' -li:¥0rk ss Po.iichayst Kaniii. Ths ord^' dsted 13.10.2001. i \1' »-- wherebv fte petitioBer therein was not allowed to dischargs the duties of Panchayat Kamu was quashed. Learaed couasel appearing fbr tlie petitioner subiiiits ihat this case is sqiiarely covered by tlie said decisicai dated 07.08.2006 passod in W.P '^..~;-, <?. ^ ''?^/'"'ri^ '--,-,.^ -?~,^o-:m r'^-" -•3<—,^1^,1' -s'.a.l-^-?*^-. -?-1-).](-- •>-y-.^A-^- r\o, ^i^^/^-uj1, <iiiQ pr^ys zor siiBiitir re'iic'? in li'us msiisr. Leanied counsel appearing ibr the respoadeat^ No. 1 aad 2/State submits fcat the alteniativs ramedy to approadi tlie Statc is available, however, tiiis Coitrt has iurisdiction to interfers with the matter in exercis.:! of its jurisdietion p-articislarly whea the identical dispute ha aiid allowed in other petition. This petitioii cancot b ground ofavailability ofaltemativs remedv. b'€€TiCOnsid^Isd c ^ ^ J"^-?^ fL ^ ^ 'l-'SU '1^3.1 111S: 5. Leanied counsel appearing for ths respondcnt No. 3 submits that despite severai communicatioBS, he lias failed to obtain acv instructions. Leamed counsei appearing fbr tfic respondent No. 4, who lias besii appoiiited ia place of thc petitioii.sr submits that this petition bc dismissed on the ground of no&-joiacier of parties. Ths coBfention of the leanied couisel fbr respondeat No. 4 eamiot be accepted on ths smiplc grouad fhat the Stats Govemmem has made it clear that case of the similarly placed eniployes has been considered in the other petition and relief has been granted. Thus, this petition is accordiasly a!!owed in fhs same tenas i.e. the ir"pugnsd order dated 13.10.2001 (.Anaexure P/5) to the extent that the petitioner shall not be allowed to work as Panchayat Karmi is liable to bs quashed aad it is hereby quashed. 6. The petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Amit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^'.^"&''" 33"^^5°"°i::?'"k ....^-s^^-^w^;-'