2024:CGHC:37787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5552 of 2024 Sukumar Sarkar S/o Kalipad Sarkar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Kirandui, P.S. Kirandul, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh KUMAR SINHA ... Petitioner Date:

2024.09.28

11:23:48 +0530 versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Tribal Caste Development Department Indravati Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Commissioner Tribal Caste Development Department Indravati Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Collector (Tribal Development Department), Dantewada District Dantewada Chhattisgarh

5 - District Education Officer Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Caste Development Department Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

25/09/2024

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“ (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider representation and to reinstate in his service with all consequential benefits in compliance of order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh in complaint case no.75/2008 with all consequential benefit at the earliest, looking to the poor condition, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. Based on some complaint made by his wife, crime was registered against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 494 of IPC. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension by order dated 24.06.2006. He faced trial for offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. Vide judgment dated 21.09.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada, petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 494 of IPC. Petitioner, thereafter, had submitted representation/application before respondent No.4 and 6 for his reinstatement in service, however, till date representation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered. He submits that as the representation is still pending consideration, direction be issued to respondents No. 4 & 6 to take decision on the pending representation within specified time.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking a direction to respondents No. 4 & 6 to take decision on his representation, he is having no objection.

4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, grievance and nature of ground raised in the petition, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that representation submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority after acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 494 of IPC is still pending consideration, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, seeking reply from the respondents, at this stage, this writ petition is disposed off, directing respondents No. 4 & 6 to take decision on the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, it is for the concerned authority to take decision on representation on its own merits.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge Praveen