^ JU HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3564 OF 2004 PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. RESR3NDENTS Usat Ram Paikra, S/o Abhimanyu Paikra, agedabout 28 years. Ramkumar Paikra, S/o Jeetan Sai Paikra, aged about years. Ku. Amarshila Tirky, D/o Prem Sai Tirky, aged about years. All resident of village Rupdega, Post Bahama, Via - Ludeg, Tahsil/Btock Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Aadim Jati, Anusuchit Jati, Pichhada Verg Evam Alpa Sankhyak Kalyan Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Collector, Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh). District Rsugarh District Project Co-coordinator, Shiksha Abhiyan, Raigarh. Serv 4. 5. 6. 7. Block Education Officer, Block Lailunga, Djstrict Raigarh (CG). Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pancha^it. Lailunga, Dist. Raigarh. Chajrman/President, Panchayat Evam Jan Bhagidari Samittee, VJltage Rupdega, Btock Lailunga, District Raigarh (CG). Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Rupdega, Block Lailunga, Dist. Raigarh (CG). (Writ petition under Articte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri K.N. Nande, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Suntta Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/r^pondents No.1to4. Shri Arun Sao, counsel for respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 13m day of August, 2008) Accordjng to tearned counsel appearing for ttie petitioners, the petitioners were working as Janbhagjdari Teachers at village Rupdega, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh. Respondent No.1 by letter dated 10-10-2002 (Annxure-P/1) directed the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, -2^" ^ •^- /'s. ^%. f^l 1^l^ Gowrj Raipur, for up-gradation of Panchayat and Janbhagidari schoote in the year 2002-03 with a condition that the concerned Panchayat Committee and Janbhagidari Samiti wouid be responsibte for maintaining the fouildjng and payment of salary to the teachers for two yesirs. The petitioners seek a relief that the respondents No.1 to 5 may be restraineci from acting on communication dated 10-10-2002. 2) The communicatjon dated 10-10-2002 states about the maintaining the building & paying salary to the teachers for minimum two years. The said period is over. Even otherwise, the petitioners are teachers, how they are concerned with the maintenance of buildtng or payment of salary when they are being paid salary regulariy. There is no grievance that on account of the communication dated 10-10-2002 their payment of salary has been withheld. Thus, this petition is frivolous and amounts to abuse and misuse ofjudidal process. 3) On a query as to what is the grievances of the petitioners. learned counsel for the petjtioners submits that, in fact, Ihe petitioners are not aggrieved, but this communication creates instabtlity in Panchayat and Janbhagidari Samiti. 4) Panchayat and Janbhagidari Samitj have not approached this Court seeking redressel of any grie^nce. It appears that this case has been fited on behalf of some other pereons, »fany. Filing of such petitions on behalf of other persons without having any grievance must be condemned. 5) In view ofthe foregoing reasons, the writ petitfon is cUsmissed. 6) Consequently, ail the pending appljcations stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge