Vidyawati Devi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This petition has been filed by the Part-Time Sweepers working in different primary schools in District - Balrampur whose services have been

discontinued in the year 2012.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that large number of similarly situated Part-Time Sweepers were discontinued from

service and they had filed petitions before this Court. All those petitions were disposed off by a common order dated 9.9.2015. It is submitted that the

petitioners herein are identically situated as the petitioners in those petitions, because the petitioners were also Part-Time Sweepers appointed in

primary school in the same district i.e. Balrampur and on similar consideration which weighed at the time of termination of the petitioners in above

referred petitions, these petitioners were also discontinued from service. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Part Time Sweepers are

low rank of employees and very meagerly paid. Therefore, in these circumstances, this petition may be finally disposed off with a direction to

respondents to examine the case of the petitioners and on parity, similar relief may be granted.

In a batch of petitions filed by Part-Time Sweepers working in various schools in the same district where the petitioners were also working as Part-

Time Sweeper, this Court had an occasion to examine the correctness of the decision taken by the authority towards en masse termination of Part-

Time Sweepers. The reasons assigned for en masse termination, as reflected in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Rajwar & Ors. Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Ors. and batch of petitions, show that the appointments were illegally made by wrongly construing and interpreting direction of the

State Govt. This Court after hearing the parties, held as below:

“7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it would appear that even if the respective principals/head masters were not informed or

authorized to make appointment, the fact remains that the State Government had earlier issued communications to the effect that there is no restriction

for appointing part time sweepers. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners were infact appointed by the respective

principals/head masters prior to issuance of the order (Annexure-P-1) and the order (Annexure-P-7). Once the appointments have been made, even

on part time basis, mass cancellation of appointments, without there being any specific individual allegation of corruption or nepotism is not permissible.

At the same time, if any part time sweeper is not attending duties as he belongs to some other village or is otherwise not efficient in his work, it always

remains open for the concerned head of the department or the appointing authority to initiate action, as the petitioners have no right to hold the post,

being only part time sweepers.â€​

Prima facie, these petitioners also seem to be affected by the en masse termination while working in the same district and on similar consideration.

The petitioners, therefore, would also be entitled to similar benefits if their cases are similarly situated as the case of those petitioners, who had earlier

approached this Court and in whose favour, common order was passed on 9.9.2015.

In view of the above consideration, respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur shall individually

examine the case of the petitioners and verify facts. If these petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in earlier batch of petitions, which was

decided on 9.9.2015, the benefits which have accrued to those petitioners and as ordered by this Court earlier in the case of Rameshwar Prasad

Rajwar (supra) shall also be granted to these petitioners.

Considering that the petitioners are very low-paid employee, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur shall

complete the exercise within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

If the petitioners' grievance are not redressed/fully redressed, they will be at liberty to revive their petitions. The petition is accordingly finally

disposed off.