Manju Bist, W/o K.S. Bist, aged about 42 Years, Q.No. B150, Adarsh Nagar, Post v. 1. Vidyut Grih Shiksha Samiti Through Secretary Korba
Case Details
ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.06 17:21:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:7799 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5142 of 2012 Manju Bist, W/o K.S. Bist, aged about 42 Years, Q.No. B150, Adarsh Nagar, Post And P.S. Kusmunda, Colliery, Tah. And Dist. Korba (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Vidyut Grih Shiksha Samiti Through Secretary Korba (East), P.S. and P.O. Tah and Dist. Korba (C.G.) 2. Principal, Vidyut Grih Higher Sec. School No. 1, Korba (East) P.S. And P.O. And Tah. And Dist. Korba (C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer (Production) KTPS, C.G. State Electricity Production Co. Ltd. Korba (East), District : Korba (C.G.) 4. C.G. State Electricity Production Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Sushma Lokare, W/o O.P. Lokare, aged about 50 Years, Lower Division Teacher, Vidyut Grih H.S. School No. 1 Korba (East) P.S. And Dist. Korba (C.G.) --- Respondents & WPS No. 2423 of 2013
Legal Reasoning
Kalpana Subramanyam, W/o. Shri Shiv Kumar Subramanyam, aged about 40 Years, R/o Quarter No. SF-589, CSEB. Colony, Korba East, Police Station - Korba Civil And Revenue Distt. Korba(C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Education Department Mahanadi -2- Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Chief Engineer (Pro.) C.G.S.P.D.C.L. Korba East, Police Station - Korba Civil And Revenue Distt. Korba (C.G.) 3. The Secretary Vidhyut Grih Vidyalaya Prabandhan Samiti Korba East, C.G.S.P.D.C.L. Korba East Police Station And Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. The Principal, Vidhyut Grih Higher Secondary School No. 1, Korba East, Police Station And Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. The Head Master, Vidhyut Grih Primary School, Korba East No. 1, Korba East Police Station And Distt. Korba 6. Sushma Lokare, Lower Division Teacher, Vidhyut Grih Primary School Korba No. 1, Korba East, Police Station And Distt. Korba (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shraddha Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate in W.P. (S) No. 5142/2012. For Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 For Respondent No.5 For Respondent/State : : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate. Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 13/02/2025 1. The dispute in these writ petitions is interlinked, therefore, they are heard and decided by this common order. 2. In W.P.S. No. 5142/2012, the petitioner is seeking the following relief : (10.1) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order bearing no. vi.gra.vi.pra.sa/sthayi/vari.suchi/2012/332, Korba, dated 17.10.2012 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure -P/4). (10.2) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 3. In W.P.S. No. 2423/2013, the petitioner seeking the following relief : -3- (10.1) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 with amended gradation list as stood on 01.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent no. 3, with all consequential actions & orders, duly in accordance with law. (10.2) That any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. 4. The facts emerging from the pleadings are that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5142/2012 was appointed vide order dated 30/08/1990 passed by respondent No.1 and joined her services on 10/09/1990. Respondent No. 5 - Sushma Lokare however joined her services on 06/03/1992. It is further case of the petitioner that in the gradation list upto the year – 2011, the petitioner was shown to be placed above the respondent No.5 which is reflected from the order dated 19/10/2012 (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, the seniority list was amended and amended seniority list was issued in which respondent No. 5 was placed at S.No.9 whereas as Petitioner was shown at S.No.10. Being aggrieved by the same, W.P. (S) No. 5142/2012 was filed. 5. By way of W.P.(S) No. 2423/2013, the petitioner has challenged the amended gradation list 17/10/2012 according to which the respondent – Sushma Lokare was placed at S. No. 9 and petitioner - Manju Bist in WPS No. 5142/2012 is at S. No.15. According to the pleadings of this petition, the petitioner - Kalpana Subramanyam was appointed on the post of Lower Division Teacher by the respondent No.3 on 21/11/1991 and joined her service on 22/11/1991. The dispute in this case is as to whether the placement of respondent – Sushma Lokare above the petitioners in these petitions in the amended gradation list is legally justified. -4- 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners joined their service prior to respondent No.5 - Sushma Lokare and as such their name should have been placed over and above her name, therefore, these writ petitions may be allowed and the relief as claimed by the them may be granted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1,3 and 4 submits that the petitioner – Manju Bist and respondent - Sushma Lokare were appointed on 30/08/1990 by Annexure P/12 in W.P. (S) 2423/2013. The respondent - Sushma Lokare joined the service on 07/09/1990 whereas petitioner – Manju Bist joined service on 10/09/1990. In some of the gradation list, the respondent - Sushma Lokare was placed below the petitioner herein, but when the mistake came into light from the representation made by the respondent - Sushma Lokare, gradation list was properly amended by the impugned order and respondent - Sushma Lokare, was placed above the petitioners – Manju Bist and Kalpana Subramanyam. Apart from this, he submits that petitioner Kalpana Subramanyam was appointed in the year - 1991 i.e. after 01 year from the appointment of respondent - Sushma Lokare. Even otherwise, the correction has already been made in the gradation list and subsequently, respondent - Sushma Lokare has already retired from the services. Therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent - Sushma Lokare submits that he adopts the submission made by Shri Tiwari, Advocate and submits that petitioner – Manju Bist has retired from the service, the petition concerning her becomes infructuous. He admits the fact, petitioner – Manju Bist and respondent - Sushma Lokare were appointed on the same day and from the records it is evident that respondent - Sushma Lokare joined service on 07/09/1990 i.e. three days prior to joining of the petitioner - Manju Bist. So far as the claim of the petitioner - Kalpana Subramanyam is concerned, it cannot granted as she was appointed in the year-1991. The dispute cropped-up because in one of in the gradation list the joining of the petitioners was shown to be 06/03/1992 which was subsequently rectified by the concerned authorities and therefore no merits in the case. -5- 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. After perusal of the record it is quite vivid that the petitioner – Manju Bist in W.P. (S) No. 5142/2012 and respondent No. 5 – Sushma Lokhare were appointed on 30/08/1990. Annexure P/13 and Annexure P/1 in W.P.(S) No. 2423/2013 indicates that the respondent No.5 - Sushma Lokare joined service on 07/09/1990. Apart from this, in return filed by the respondent No. 3 to 5 of earlier litigation between the respondent - Sushma Lokare and respondent No. 3 to 4, it has been admitted that respondent - Sushma Lokare was appointed on 07/09/1990. It is the case where categoricaly stand has been taken by the employer that the respondent - Sushma Lokare joined service on 07/09/1990 and as such there is no occasion for this court to discredit the specific stand. 11. In light of the above it is evident that respondent – Sushma Lokare was senior on account of her joining date as 07/09/1990 prior to joining of both the petitioners in the respective school. It has also to be considered that respondent - Sushma Lokare has already retired from the service. 12. Considering the submissions made above and on perusal of the record, this court is not inclined to interfere the impugned gradation list. 13. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Ashish Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge