Girdhar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 131 of 2025 Girdhar Pandey S/o Shri Shivanand Pandey Aged About 51 Years Presently Working as Watchman (Daily Wage Employee), Keshkal Forest Barrier, Forest Division Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Forest Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4. Divisional Forest OfÏcer, North Forest Division, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Divisional Forest OfÏcer, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 6. Satya Narayan S/o Maniram Aged About 47 Years Presently Working as Watchman, Vishrampuri Bade Rajpur, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Shri Chatur Ram Yadav, Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Wathcman, Forest Division, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 8. Kamal Dewangan S/o Shri Mahatma Dewangan, Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Wathchman, Forest Division, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.20 17:38:52 +0530 2 9. Ganshu S/o Shri Patiram Aged About 38 Years Presently Working as Watchman, Forest Division, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 20 .02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 490 of 2017 (Girdhar Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been initially appointed as Watchman (Chowkidar) on daily wage basis on 01.09.1991 in Forest Division, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (CG) and from the date of appointment of the appellant, he is continuously working at the same place and on the same post till date under the Respondents. He also submits that during the service tenure, a Departmental Scrutiny 3 Committee has been constituted at North Kondagaon Forest Division in order to scrutinize the Daily Wage employees for their regularization who are working continuously since 1997. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Scrutiny Committee during its scrutiny found the appellant entitled for regularization along with other junior daily wage age employees and on 18.02.2009 submitted a recommendation to the Divisional Forest OfÏcer, Forest Division, North Kondagaon Forest Division, Kondagaon (CG) for his regularization on the regular post of Watchman. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.06.2009, shockingly only the junior daily wage employees have been regularized ignoring the senior most daily wage employees including the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the appellant submitted its representation to the Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, Kanker (CG). When no response was communicated, nor has any action been taken, the appellant has submitted another representation. However, even after repeated request made by the appellant, nothing was communicated by the respondents nor any action was taken for regularization of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that being aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the respondents, the appellant approached before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2180 of 2016 in which learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose off the said writ petition vide order dated 16.06.2016 with a direction to the respondent No.5/ DFO/Keshkal to take decision with regard to appellant’s claim for regularization within a period of 03 months. However, despite lapse of 03 months stipulated time as given by this Court the directions issued vide 4 order dated 16.06.2016 passed in the WPS No. 2180 of 2016, no decision was taken and when appellant’s case was not considered for regularization and appellant has also not received any communication from the respondent DFO, thereafter, appellant filed a Contempt Petition before this Court being registered as Contempt Case No. 425 of 2016 for flouting the orders and command of this Court. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in reply to the said Contempt case, respondents have filed an action taken report along with order dated 15.09.2016 stating that appellant is not entitled for regularization in service. In view of above, the Contempt Petition No. 495 of 2016 has been disposed off vide order dated 08.12.2016, however, with liberty to challenge the order dated 15.09.2016 whereby the appellant’s claim for regularization of his service has been rejected. He also contended that on close perusal of the impugned order, it would at once, reveal that without considering the muster-roll details, just to comply with the orders of this Court, the respondent authorities, in hot-haste manner, without showing or enclosing the muster-roll details, issued the order. Had it been the case of the appellant, then how the other daily wage employees including the respondents No. 6 to 9 have been recommended for regularization along with the appellant. It is only due to the fact the appellant had approached before this Court, his case was not considered for regularization. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 15.09.2016 is not only illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, but is also highly misconceived and is in serious violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that 5
Decision
during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant applied under the Right to Information Act regarding details of regularization proceeding as well as muster rolls in respect of proof of presence of the appellant and juniors who were regularized and the appellant had filed the copy of his application in the records of the writ petition. However, no documents were provided to the appellant and also the respondents failed to demonstrate by submitting documentary evidence as to why the junior employees were regularized and not the appellant. He also contended that on 04.01.2018, the in charge DFO Kehshkal Forest Division District Kondagaon wrote a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kanker informing that the records pertaining to the daily wages employees including the appellant were not received even after several communication and requested to provide the records before 15.01.2018 and the records were never filed before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10.12.2024 which has been dismissed on 10.12.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the scrutiny committee of the forest department, during the scrutiny for the regularization, found that the appellant along with the other daily wages employees are entitled for regularization of their services and the committee also recommended the name of the appellant along with other daily wages employee vide its memo dated 18.02.2009 to the Divisional Forest OfÏcer, Forest Division North Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondagaon, but the learned Single Judge while ignoring this point in respect of appellant’s entitlement for regularization as well as on what basis, junior to the appellant in service, are entitled for regularization. 6 Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that appellant has not worked regularly without break in service for a continuous period of 10 years and, therefore, his case is not covered under Circular dated 05.03.2008. As such, the DFO, Keshkal has rightly rejected the case of the appellant with regard to regularization. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. Admittedly, earlier the appellant herein had filed writ petition bearing WPS No.2180 of 2016 before this Court in which the learned Single Judge had directed the competent authority/DFO, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, to consider the case of the appellant for regularization and after considering the case of the appellant, the DFO, Keshkal, vide order dated 15.09.2016 has held that between 2001 to 2005 the appellant has not worked as a daily wager employee and held as under:- foospuk ,oa fu"d"kZ%& mioue.Mykf/kdkjh ds’kdky mioue.My }kjk vius dk;kZy;hu i= dzekad@1054 ds’kdky fnukad 14@09@2016 ds ek/;e ls izfrosnu izLrqr fd;kA mDr i= esa Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms;] nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dks fu;fefrdj.k gsrq vik= ik;k x;kA mioue.Mykf/kdkjh ¼ Nkuchu lfefr½ ds’kdky mioue.My us ;g Hkh mYYks[k fd;k gS] fd iwoZ esa lfefr }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu i= dzekad@f’k-fy-@964 fnukad 26@11@2013 ds 7 ek/;e ls izLrqr izfrosnu dks ekU; djrs gq, Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms; firk Jh f’kokUkUn ik.Ms; dks vik++= ik;k tkrk gSA NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx jk;iqj ds Kkiu dzekad@,Q@12&1@2007@1&3 jk;iqj fnukad 05@03@2008 esa tkjh funsZ’kkuqlkj 01 o"kZ esa 240 fnol dk;Z vof/k dh ik=rk iw.kZ djus esa vleFkZ gSA Jh fej/kj ikl ckl fnukad 14@09@2016 dks vius fyf[kr c;ku esa fuEukafdr vof/k esa vfHkys[k oue.My esa izLrqr fd;k tkuk ys[k fd;k gS%& dzekad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 o"kZ 02/199 से 12/1990 dk;Z vof/k - vuqifLFkr vof/k ekg - 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 - 100 - 51 270 59 31 - - - - - - - - 31 135 - 7 - 9 - 9 11 12 - - - - - - - 11 8 8 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 156 182 312 313 312 221 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 2 - - - - vkosnd }kjk mYysf[kr vof/k ds vfHkys[kksa ds vfrfjDr muds ikl vU; nLrkost miyC/k ugh gksuk crk;kA vfHkys[kksa dks izkIr djus gsrq etnwj la?k }kjk oue.My dkadsj vkosnu fd;k x;k FkkA la?k }kjk miYkC/k vfHkys[k nf{k.k dks.Mkxkao oue.My dks IkzLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS] Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms; nSfud Jfed }kjk tks vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] og Nkuchu lfefr dks iwoZ esa miYkC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA blesa ;g Li"V gS fd Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms; o"kZ 2001 ls 2005 rd foHkkx esa nSfud osru HkksXkh Jfed ds :i eas dk;Zjr ugha FksA vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Li"V gqvk fd Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms; o"kZ 2006 esa 31 fnol] o"kZ 2007 esa 135 fnol] o"kZ 2008 esa 156 fnol dk;Z fd;k gSA NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ds Kkiu dzekad@,Q12&1@2007@1&3 jk;iqj fnukad 05@03@2008 esa tkjh funsZ’kkuqlkj Jh fxj/kj ik.Ms; dks fu;fefrdj.k dh ik=rk ugh curhA vRk% izdj.k ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkostksa ,oa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk miYkC/k djk;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.kksijkUr esa fuEukuqlkj vkns’k ikfjr djrk gWw-%& 12. From perusal of the aforesaid order, the DFO, Keshkal, has clearly recorded finding that the appellant has not worked between 2001 to 2005 and also he has worked intermittently for few days in an year. The DFO, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, has rightly held that the appellant was not entitled for regularization in terms of Circular dated 05.03.2008. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 9 13. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan