Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:41223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 828 of 2023 1 - Rajesh Kaushik S/o Shri Mani Ram Kaushik Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Working As - Peon (Class -Iv), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer (Sub Division - Pendra, District- Marwahi-Gaurela-Pendra, Chhattisgarh, R/o - Bhatiya Residency, Mangla, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director Department Of Agriculture, Directorate Of Agriculture, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director Department Of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Deputy Director Department Of Agriculture, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Department Of Agriculture, Sub Division - Pendra, District- Marwahi-Gaurela-Pendra, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 Order on Board 14/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities for consideration to extend the benefit of seniority from the date of initial appointment i.e. 10.06.1996 OR from the date of regularization i.e. 03.09.2009. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to provide all the consequential service benefits to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wager Clerk on 10.04.1996 with the respondent authorities. At present, the petitioner is working as a Peon (Class IV employee) under the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 7118/2011 seeking appointment on the post of Class III along with the benefit of seniority from the date of his initial appointment or from 3 the date of his regularization. The said writ petition was decided on 01.09.2021, wherein the petitioner was directed to submit a representation before the respondent authorities for consideration of his seniority either from the date of initial appointment or from the date of regularization. In compliance with the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.02.2022 before the respondent authorities. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had already been regularized vide order dated 03.09.2009, wherein his name appeared at Serial No. 01. However, while issuing the impugned order dated 17.06.2022, the petitioner was wrongly granted seniority only from 27.01.2022 instead of from his initial date of appointment i.e., 10.04.1996, or in the alternative, from the date of his regularization i.e. 03.09.2009. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages as on 10.04.1996 under the respondent authorities and had been discharging his duties continuously and diligently since then. Subsequently, by virtue of order dated 03.09.2009, his services were regularized with effect from the said date. However, despite rendering more than a decade of service prior to regularization, the period of daily wage service has not been taken into consideration for the purposes of fixation of seniority, continuity of service, and other consequential 4 benefits, which is contrary to the settled principles of law as laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further contended that in Writ Petition No. 7118/2011, this Court had specifically passed an order recognizing his claim, pursuant to which his joining was duly taken on record, yet without any justifiable reason or legal basis, the petitioner’s service and seniority have not been reckoned from the initial date of appointment i.e. 10.04.1996. Learned counsel further submits that such action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it deprives the petitioner of his legitimate rights accrued on account of long and continuous service. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that in the event the petitioner chooses to file an appropriate representation before the competent respondent authorities, the same shall be duly considered in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that the respondents, upon receipt of such representation, will examine the claims and grievances of the petitioner on their own merits and thereafter take a reasoned and speaking decision, strictly in conformity with the applicable legal provisions, rules, and settled principles of law within a reasonable period of time. 5 5. Upon a careful perusal of the order of regularization dated 03.09.2009, it clearly emerges that the petitioner was regularized in service with effect from the said date. In view of the same, it follows that his claim for seniority is liable to be considered reckoning from the date of his regularization, i.e., 03.09.2009, and not from any anterior period. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent–authorities concerned to duly consider and decide the representation to be submitted by the petitioner in this regard. The said exercise shall be undertaken and concluded strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made herein, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is, however, made explicitly clear that this Court has refrained from entering into the merits of the controversy and has only confined itself to directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. 7. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat