High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 03 CHH CK 0015

PRATIKSHA MOHGAONKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 9 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, RAM PRASANNA SHARMA
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
WA No. 382 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

Heard.

2.

The contest between the parties is about entitlement to draw salary from the post of Lecturer, Pre-Examination Training Centre, Bilaspur. The

appellant was earlier drawing salary from the post of Additional Director, however, since after posting of regular Additional Director on 14.9.2016, the

appellant was directed vide order dated 22.9.2016 to draw salary from the post of Lecturer, on which, one Asha Williams was drawing salary till that

date. Resultantly, Asha Williams has preferred WPS No.5347/2016. In that petition, an interim order is operative in her favour, therefore, the present

appellant moved an application for vacating the said interim order, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has no locus in

that petition.

3.

Being compelled, the appellant preferred independent writ petition bearing WPS No.1309 of 2017, claiming entitlement to draw salary from the post

of Lecturer. By the impugned order, the appellant's separate writ petition has also been dismissed saying that since she has already moved an

application for impleadment in the pending writ petition preferred by Asha Williams, there no need to continue the writ petition preferred by her.

4.

Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that in view of the observation made by the learned Single Judge, while rejecting

the appellant's prayer for vacating stay, that the appellant has no locus to seek vacation of the interim order, her application for impleadment may not

be allowed. Thus, the appellant may be heard either in her writ petition, which has now been dismissed by the impugned order, or in the previous

petition.

5.

Considering the facts situation of the case, it appears, since the appellant was held entitled to draw salary from the post of Lecturer by order

22.9.2016, she appears to be interested in the outcome of the litigation so that her claim to draw salary from the post of Lecturer is settled after

providing opportunity of hearing to her.

6.

In view of the above, without interfering with the impugned order, the writ appeal is disposed of with observation that the appellant shall be heard in

the writ petition preferred by Asha Williams.