Vinod Kumar Rai and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.05 17:33:06 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:6454-DB NAFR WA No. 81 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Rai S/o T.M Rai Aged About 38 Years Working As Shiksha Karmi Grade II, R/o Village Kumhari Police Station Marwahi Tahsil Marwahi District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Now Gourela Pendra Marwahi) (C.G.) (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned As D.M Rai In Impugned Order) versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Panchayat Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur District Bilaspur 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Marwahi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.02.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.02/2025 is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 24.07.2024 (Vinod Kumar Rai and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.5857 of
Decision
2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 5. The facts of the case according to the appellant is that initially the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 12.08.1998 by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi in the pay scale of Rs. 800-20-1200 and in pursuance of the order the appellant has reported for duty and worked from 12.08.1998 to 25.09.1998 (as reflected from Annexure P/2 of writ petition). Thereafter, a complaint was made alleging irregularity in the appointment process, therefore, the proceeding was initiated by the Additional Collector, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur which 3 was registered as Revenue Case No. 24-ब-121/1999-2000 regarding irregularities in the appointment of Shiksha Karmi and vide order dated 15.02.2000, the Collector has directed for issuance of modified selection list, accordingly the Executive Officer/ respondent No. 3 was directed to issue appointment order of the appellant in view of the modified selection list. The order was not assailed before any forum, thus it has reached the finality. During pendency of writ petition, the Government of Chhattisgarh has taken a policy decision regarding absorption of Shiksha Karmi in the School Education Department vide order dated 01.07.2018. This absorption was made with effect from 01.07.2018 and in pursuance of that order the appellant service was absorbed in the School Education Department and he was placed in his local body cadre. As per policy Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade- III have been made as Assistant Teacher, Teacher and Head Master as per their length of service as per the Recruitment Rule, 2019 made in this behalf by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioners have been facing a lot of issues with their writ petition being dismissed due to delay. They had submitted their representation on 31.12.2007, but it was not decided and their writ petition was 4 later dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.11.2014 citing 14 years delay, they claim that they had filed their writ petition within the due time, but the court erroneously held that it was barred by the period of delay. They had also submitted multiple representations to the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Marwahi between December 2007 and May 2008, but these were not decided, leading to the filing of the writ petition. He further submits that the writ-petitioners had claimed salary and seniority based on their work service from August 12, 1998, to September 25, 1998, but learned Single Judge did not consider the document and dismissed their claim on July 24, 2024, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that leaned Single Judge has held that initially the appellant was appointed in 5 the year 1998, but subsequently his appointment was cancelled and his service was terminated and thereafter the Collector who has enquired into the matter has passed the order wherein it was directed for preparation of modified list and accordingly, the appointment orders were issued in the year 2000, as such, it is quite vivid that they have been included in their cadre after issuance of appointment order in the year 2000 as per direction of the Collector which was never assailed by the appellant and he has openly accepted the same without any reservation and protest and after lapse of 14 years he intended to challenge the order by filing writ petition. Thus the appellant is estopped from challenging the same as he has with open eyes accepted the modified order without any protest or challenge the same. Further the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the count that the appellant has never assailed the order of 2000 before any forum, therefore, he cannot challenge the execution of the subsequent order unless the original order is challenged by him and also on the count of delay and latches as the order was passed in the year 2000 and he has filed the petition after lapse of 14 years. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ petition as also in writ appeal, also considering the return field by the State in writ petition and the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that 6 learned Single Judge has not committed illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu