Latest news with #BibhuDattaGuru
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh High Court stays transfer of Vet Officer over ‘violation' of Scheduled Area posting guidelines; committee told to decide in 15 days
Chhattisgarh High Court stays transfer of Vet Officer over 'violation' of Scheduled Area posting guidelines; committee told to decide in 15 days RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has stayed the transfer order of a deputy director of veterinary services, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, who challenged his posting to a scheduled area. The 63 year-old petitioner, through his counsel Mateen Siddiqui, contended that his transfer to Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur district is contrary to the state government's guidelines for postings in such areas. The Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, 'It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner who has discharged maximum part of his duty in the scheduled area. Presently, he has been again transferred to a scheduled area which appears to be contrary to the guidelines dated 03.06.2015, hence the petitioner is directed to approach the committee constituted by the State Government on 03.03.2025 within a period of 5 days and in case the petitioner approached the said committee, the said committee shall consider the representation and grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as the guidelines dated 03.06.2015 within a further period of 15 days. Till the decision of the Committee the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 shall remain stayed till the decision of the Committee.' The petitioner, who has served a significant part of his tenure in scheduled areas, argued that the transfer order dated 5 March 2025 violates the guidelines issued on 3 June 2015. The court directed the petitioner to approach a committee constituted by the State Government on 3 March 2025. This committee is tasked with reviewing transfer orders and addressing grievances. The court has instructed the committee to consider Dr. Ahmad's representation and grievance in accordance with the law and the 3 June 2015 guidelines, within 15 days. The High Court has stayed the transfer order until the committee reaches a decision. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for ‘persecution of tribal Christians'
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC junks plea for SIT, compensation & inquiry commission in Sukma violence against tribal Christians
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought various reliefs, including compensation, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a Commission of Inquiry. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the reliefs sought, such as compensation and the constitution of an SIT or Inquiry Commission under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register First Information Reports (FIRs), provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Some officials reportedly refused to acknowledge complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The Additional Advocate General argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for demands such as compensation or the formation of an SIT or Inquiry Commission. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law, such as filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the concerned court. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Indian Express
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
180-day ‘child adoption leave' granted to IIM Raipur staffer by High Court
The Chhattisgarh HC has granted 180 days child adoption leave to a 46-year-old woman working as an assistant administrative officer at IIM Raipur, who had adopted a newborn girl in 2023, saying that child care leave is not just a benefit but a right that supports the fundamental need of a woman to take care of her family. After the institute refused to grant her leave, the woman had filed a petition in HC last year. The petitioner urged the HC to declare/hold that child adoption leave and child care leave as per Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 are applicable to the petitioner and other women employees of IIM Raipur in absence of there being any contrary inconsistent provision in their regulation. IIM Raipur's lawyer contended, 'The HR Policy of IIM Raipur is the governing framework for service conditions and the petitioner cannot unilaterally demand application of the Rules, 1972 in contravention of the Institute's policies. The HR Policy of IIM Raipur does not contain any provision for Child Adoption Leave under the applicable leave framework. Instead the policy provides for commuted leave for female staff members under certain circumstances, which was granted to the petitioner in good faith.' 'Neither the institute is obligated to abide by the directions or guidelines issued by the Central or the State Government. It is for the Board of Governors to decide which policies or rules floated by the State are required to be incorporated in the functioning of the institute,' the lawyers said. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru said that the petitioner is entitled to 180 days child adoption leave as per the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, as the HR Policy of IIM, Raipur, is silent on this aspect. The judge noted, 'The participation of women in the workforce is not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Child adoption/child care leave is not just a benefit but a right that supports the fundamental need of a woman to take care of her family. A fundamental right under Articles 19, 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.' When contacted, IIM Raipur told The Indian Express they may comment after going through the order. According to the petition, the woman and her husband adopted a two-day-old girl on November 20, 2023. The petitioner then applied for child adoption leave for 180 days with effect from 20 November. On December 18, 2023, the request was denied by IIM, which stated that as per their HR policy, there was no such provision. Under the heading of commuted leave, the institute policy provides a maximum of 60 days leave to female staff with less than two living children who adopt a child less than one year old. Therefore, they granted the commuted leave for 60 days from 20.11.2023 to 18.1.2024. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities is contrary to the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules. The petitioner's lawyer submitted that the HR policy of IIM Raipur categorically provides that where rules are silent in the Institute's HR Policy and Service Rules, Central Government Rules may be followed and as such as per the Rule 43-B and 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the petitioner is entitled for 180 days child adoption leave.
