Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Environment And Town Administration Development, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 19:01:18 +0530 2025:CGHC:32872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 452 of 2021 Ravindra Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Keju Prasad Tiwari Aged About 63 Years Retired Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Environment And Town Administration Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Director Town Administration And Development District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Nagar Palika Parishad Jamul, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Co-Operation Limited Through Its Chief Manager, C.G. State Skill Development Bhavan, Second Floor, Old Police Headquater, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 4
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kesharwani, Advocate : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the pension and all the other retiral dues to the petitioner against 2 the services rendered by him the office of the respondent authorities. 10.2 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17/03/2021 passed by respondent No. 3.” 2. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the year 1984 under M.P. Road Transport Corporation. After the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh, particularly with the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (in short CIDC). He would further submit that vide order dated 02.06.2004, the services of the petitioner were transferred on deputation to the Nagar Palika, Jamul, District Durg. He would also submit that a resolution was passed on 08.07.2019 by Nagal Palika to absorb the services of the petitioner against a vacant post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and the matter was recommended to the State Government to accord approval. He would contend that an order was passed by the State Government on 26.05.2020, whereby the services of the petitioner were absorbed, whereas, the date of retirement of the petitioner was 31.05.2020. He would further contend that after retirement, the due date of superannuation was modified from 31.05.2020 to 30.04.2020 and the order of absorption issued by the State was not given effect. Mr. Shrivastava would further argue that right accrued in favour of the petitioner as the order of absorption of services was passed in his favour on 26.05.2020, prior to the date of superannuation; therefore, the 3 petitioner is entitled to get all consequential benefits. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 4041, where it is held that Government employees are entitled for the benefit of one annual increment, earned one day prior to retirement. He would further argue that as the order was passed by the State Government with regard to the absorption of the services of the petitioner prior to the date of superannuation, the petitioner would be deemed absorbed with the Nagar Palika, Jamul and he is entitled to all the benefits attached to the post. He would also argue that according to Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967, respondent No. 3 was under obligation to consider the claim of the petitioner of absorption as an order was already passed by the State in favour of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that there was some discrepancy with the date of birth of the petitioner and it was found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 01.05.1958, and therefore, the extended date of retirement was modified from 31.05.2020 to 30.04.2020. They would further submit that the order with regard to absorption was issued by the State after superannuation, therefore, it was not given effect. They would also submit that the order of superannuation was subsequently canceled vide order dated 17.03.2021, therefore, the benefits were not extended to the petitioner. They would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the 4 documents placed on the record. 5. Admitted facts are that the petitioner was an employee of the M.P. Road Transport Corporation; after the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, initially, the petitioner was an employee of CIDC, but later on, his services were sent on deputation to the Nagar Palika, Jamul, District Durg vide order dated 02.06.2004. A resolution was passed by the Nagar Palika, Jamul to absorb the services of the petitioner on 08.07.2019 and a recommendation was forwarded to the State Government for its approval. The State Government accorded its approval on 26.05.2020 but prior to that date, a notice was issued, wherein, the date of superannuation of the petitioner was mentioned as 31.05.2020. But later on, it was detected by respondent No. 3 that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 01.05.1958, and thus, his age of superannuation would be 30.04.2020. The order of absorption was canceled by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 17.03.2021 and therefore, the monetary benefits were not extended to the petitioner. 6. It is argued by Mr. Rejeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate that the right accrued in favour of the petitioner but the contention made by Mr. Shrivastava cannot be accepted as the date of retirement was modified by the Nagar Palika, Jamul vide order dated 17.03.2021 on the basis of the service records as well as educational certificates. The petitioner has challenged the said order by way of amendment in the present petition, but no document has been placed on record to demonstrate that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was not 01.05.1958; therefore, it can safely be held that the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.05.1958, and he was rightly superannuated by the department on 30.04.2020. 7. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel deals with the grant 5 of increments. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that government servants would be entitled to an annual increment one day prior to the date of their retirement. It is not a case of annual increment; therefore, the case cited by Mr. Shrivastava is of no help. As on 30.04.2020, the order of absorption was not passed in favour of the petitioner and it was passed subsequently; therefore, in my opinion, no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 9. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive retiral dues from respondent No. 4. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondent No. 4 raising his grievances, and in turn, respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant