Nagendra Bahadur Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appel
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.29 10:21:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:4882-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 56 of 2025 Nagendra Bahadur Singh S/o Late Ramdas Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Junior Mig-71, Near Shiv Mandir Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Controller Food And Drugs Block 1, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Treasury And Pension Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following 2 relief(s): “It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and the judgment dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure A/1), passed in W.P.(S) No.2547/2020, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, may kindly be set-aside and the writ appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice and the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.11.2017 may also kindly be set-aside and appellant may kindly be granted all the consequential benefits.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2547 of 2020 (Nagendra Bahadur Singh v. State
Decision
of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee vide order dated 30.11.1993 under respondent No.2. On 29.01.2005, the petitioner was 3 appointed on the post of Driver against the vacant and sanctioned post and vide order dated 27.08.2010; services of petitioner were confirmed on the post of Driver. On 11.06.2012, the nomenclature of the post of the petitioner was changed from Driver to Driver (Heavy Vehicle) and thereafter, the petitioner was extended the benefit of the 5th pay-scale as recommended by the Committee. The petitioner obtained ACRs from 01.04.2011 till 31.03.2017. Though the petitioner had not completed seven years of regular service, vide order dated 17.11.2017, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on account of attaining 50 years of age. 5. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 16.01.2019 and 17.11.2017, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.2547 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.12.2024. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the fact that the name of the appellant/writ petitioner has not been considered by the Committee for compulsory retirement as well as there is no recommendation of the Committee to compulsory retire the writ 4 petitioner, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order as also applying the rulings rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and others, (1992) 2 SCC 299, State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 and S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order by observing as follows :- “11) Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the overall grade of 5 the petitioner was average or below average and the same is evident from the chart prepared in para No. 8. The decision could have been taken by the State authorities with regard to compulsory retirement as the petitioner had completed 50 years of age. The un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority. It is also a well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not have any stigma attached to it. The decision with regard to compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest and the order was passed on subjective satisfaction. It is also clear that principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. There is no allegation with regard to malafide intention or biasness. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken. 12) Taking into consideration the law laid 6 down by the Apex Court and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required. 13) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 14) Copies of ACRs from 2005 till 2017 supplied by the State counsel aretaken on record.” 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu