Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 NAFR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1411 of 2024 1 - Ghasi Ram Sahoo S/o Dukhoo Sahoo, Aged About 34 Years Working As Fieldaman, Posted At Gudli Nursery, Range, Taregaon, Kawardha, Project Division, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhavan, Nya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Through Its Managing Director, Sector -24 Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Regional General Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Kawardha Project Division, Near Collectorate Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 1418 of 2024 1 - Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o Pilu Ram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Project Range Officer, Posted At Range-Rawan, Circle-Raitum,bar Nawapara Project Division, District-Raipur (Cg) 2 Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Through Its Managing Director, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 3 - The Regional General Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Bar Nawapara Project Division, C-52, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 1410 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 - Shrikant Kumar Singh S/o Satyendra Singh Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Project Range Officer, Posted At Range - Singhari, Circle-Baijallpur, Kawardha Project Division, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Through Its Managing Director, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Regional General Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, Kawardha Project Division, Near Collectorate Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For State : : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. For Respondents : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate 3 No.2 to 4 04.02.2025 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 1. Since common question of law are involved in these writ petitions, hence, they are being heard and decided by this common order.
Decision
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are seeking a direction by this Court that they are not being given benefit of order dated 10.04.1997 issued by the respondent No.2 and there are illegally deprived from the said benefit. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh has taken a decision in its meeting of Board of Directors held on 14.03.1997 for sending Fieldsman Forest Guard, who secured first position in the training session, directly for higher post and if the said candidate clears the training session then he would be required to be promoted to the higher post subject to the availability of the same. The order dated 10.04.1997 is applicable even after bifurcation of the State and the same is still in existence. All the petitioners were appointed as Fieldsman which is equivalent to the post of Forest Guard under the forest Department. Vide order dated 07.07.2016, the respondent No.4 has directed for relieving the petitioners for training of Forest Guard in the Forest Guard Training Session at Van Rakshak Prashikshan Shala (Forest Guard Training School) Kawardha for six months’ period beginning from 01.07.2016 and ending on 4 31.12.2016. The petitioners participated in the training and one petitioner namely Ghasi Ram Sahoo secured first position while the others have also successfully passed the said training course. According to the policy of the State Government, the petitioners who have successfully completed their training are required to be promoted for the next higher post subject to availability of the same. The next higher post for the post of Fieldsman is the post of Assistant Project Range Officer under the respondent No.2. When the petitioner was not considered for promotion, a representation was moved on 13.06.2023 to the respondent No.4 through the proper channel. The respondent No.4, in turn, send the said representation to the respondent No.2 for taking decision upon the same. According to the order dated 10.04.1997 issued by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the Fieldsman/ Forest Guard securing first position in the training session is required to be directly send for training session for the higher post and if such person successfully passed in his/her training session, then he/she may be promoted to the said post. Thereafter, the petitioners have obtained an information under the Right to Information according to which the order dated 10.04.1997 is still in existence and is in force in the State of Chhattisgarh. The respondent No.2 has given the said benefits to similarly placed persons however, the same is not being given to the petitioners and due to the aforesaid grievance, all the writ petitioners have filed these writ petitions while submitting their apathy and inaction 5 on the part of the respondent authorities. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No.1411/2024 (Ghasi Ram Sahoo vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) is taken into consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:- “A. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case for its kind perusal, in the ends of justice. B. That, in the facts and circumstances of the writ petition the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents; in particular the respondents No. 2 to 4; to grant the benefit of the order dated 10.04.1997 to the petitioner with all incidental and consequential benefit in the ends of justice. C. That, in the facts and circumstances of the writ petition the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents; in particular the respondents No. 2 to 4; to grant all monetary and financial benefits including salary of the higher post for back period and seniority for subsequent promotions etc. to the petitioner as per law and all consequential and incidental benefits may also kindly be given to the petitioner, in the ends of justice. D. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of the petition and any 6 other alternative, additional writ in favour of the petitioners in the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the non action on the part of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the respondent authorities are not honoring their own order and are not acting upon the same. The petitioners are facing hardship and they are further not getting any chance for promotion though they have successfully completed their training course, which is according to department is condition precedent for getting an opportunity for promotion. The inaction on the part of the respondent authorities are nonetheless but an act of deprivation of the legitimate right of the petitioners. As such, the petitioners are seeking interference of this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their return while submitting that the petitions suffer with delay and latches. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with an inordinate delay of 9 years. According to the petitioners, they have secured first rank in the training scheduled on 31.10.2016, 31.07.2015 and 30.07.2015, however, they were promoted on the post of Assistant Project Range Officer on 13.03.2024, 25.01.2022 & 28.12.2022 respectively but the inordinate delay in approaching this Court is unexplained. The circular dated 10.04.1997 has been withdrawn by the respondents on 08.08.2023 as the original 7 circular of the State Government dated 17.07.1997 was withdrawn on 11.06.2012. The petitioners have already been promoted from the post of Fieldsman to Assistant Project Range Officers and, as such, they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for by them. He further submits that the petition sans merit and is liable to be dismissed with cost. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in the matter of P.L. Maheshwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPS No.6442/2016 decided on 26.06.2024 and submits that the present petition also suffers with delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petition. 7. True it is that the order passed by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 10.04.1997 is applicable to the State of Chhattisgarh as it has been adopted by this State. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have undergone a training vide order dated 10.04.1997 and have secured first position on 31.10.2016, 31.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 respectively. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that subsequently vide order dated 13.03.2024, 25.01.2025 and 28.12.2020 all the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Project Range Officer, however, they were not being promoted from the date on which they have secured first position in the training programme as per 8 order the dated 10.04.1997. 8. From the aforesaid admitted positions of the case, it is apparent that as per circular dated 10.04.1997 the petitioners were directed to attend the training which they have successfully completed and have secured first position which was a condition precedent for getting promotion on the post of Assistant Project Range Officer. Once the petitioners have completed their training programme way back in the year 2015 and 2016, it would be incumbant upon the respondents No. 2 to 4 to pass appropriate orders in respect of their promotion on the basis of their securing first position, however, the same has not been done immediately after they secured their first position in the training. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that the circular dated 10.04.1997 has already came to an end also does not seems to be a correct position. According to learned State counsel circular dated 10.04.1997 has been withdrawn by the respondents on 08.08.2023 due to the reason that the original circular of the State dated 17.10.1997 was already withdrawn on 11.06.2012. As such, on the basis of circular dated 10.04.1997, the petitioners cannot be given benefit which they are claiming in these writ petitions. The respondent State has made an objection that there is a misjoinder of necessary party. On the basis of circular dated 10.04.1997, similarly situated employees have been extended benefit on the ground that they had secured first position prior to 11.07.2012 i.e. the date on which the circular was withdrawn. 9 Once the petitioners were appointed and during the course of their employment, the circular came into existence for their promotion, then the date for consideration of the said circular could be reckoned and the benefit could be extended to the employees on the basis of circular which has been subsequently withdrawn by the respondent authorities. There is a marginal difference in respect of applicability of the order dated 10.04.1997. At the time of joining as well as at the time of their time bound promotion, the acts and rules governed the field. The circulars are part and parcels of the rules which has been enacted for promotion of the petitioners. The subsequent rule by which the petitioners are being denied benefit of promotion would not in accordance with law as right form the beginning, when the petitioners joined their services, they were under legitimate expectation of their promotion which cannot be curtailed on the basis of subsequent circular of the State Government. The subsequent circular is not meant for arbitrariness in granting promotion. The petitioners have legitimate expectation for their promotion for which they have undergone a training and have secured first position. 9. The Supreme Court in an identical case in the matter of Omkar Sinha & Anr. vs. Sahadat Khan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3504/2022 has dealt with identical issue vide judgment dated 29.04.2022 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is as follows:- 10 “14. We think it is unnecessary to again burden the judgment with copious reference to case law as we have already referred to the paragraphs as contained in the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bachhittar Singh (supra). What is relevant is that under the Rules, Rule 14 (1) provided for promotion from the post of Guard to Forester. Under the same, we notice Schedule IV. It is provided that a Forest Guard could be promoted after three years after training from the Forest Guards Training School or after 12 years or more years of service in the case of untrained Forest Guards. However, we must notice Rule 6. Rule 6 of the said Rules provides for method of recruitment. Rule 6 inter alia provides that recruitment to the service after commencement of the Rules which we notice is in the year 1967, can be made inter alia by promotion of members of the service mentioned in column 12 of Schedule IV. Thereafter what is relevant is sub Rule (4): "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government the exigencies of the service so require, the Government may adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe." Therefore, it would appear to be the case of the State that it is not as if the 1977 order was in any manner contrary to the statutory rules and it was very much premised on the statutory rules. 15. We have already noticed the factual position. The appellants undoubtedly stood first in the training 11 programme during the training as Forest Guards. There was a reorganisation of the State as we have noticed. The Government Order which would appear to be a Government Order in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh continued in terms of the Reorganisation Act. Such Government Orders of the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh would undoubtedly continue to hold the field till it was revoked in the manner known to law. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has proceeded on the basis that the order dated 17.10.1977 was revoked by order dated 14.05.2009. It is, undoubtedly, true that in the said communication, it is addressed by the Secretary to the Principal Chief Forest Conservator. The proposed strike and the decision taken is referred to. At the same time, it all ends by requesting that the necessary proposal be submitted. It is thereafter that communication dated 14.12.2009 came to be made. Communication dated 14.12.2009 is not an order of the Governor or expressed to be made in his name. It is a communication, no doubt, issued by a Chief Forest Conservator. Therein, no doubt, reference is made to the demands made by the Employees Union and that the decision had been taken to give two additional increments to the trainees who stood first in the Forest Guard training in replacement of the earlier incentive of sending them for training as Forester. It is also stated that there is no need to send the candidates who stood first in the Forest Guard training for training as Forester. It is reiterated that as per the directions of the Chhattisgarh Government, the trainees who stood first are entitled 12 for only 02 additional increments. We must notice that this communication does not bear the insignia of a Government Order, which alone would suffice to show that order dated 17.10.1977 stood withdrawn. Whereas we would find that the communication dated 11.06.2012 contains two specific signs. Firstly, it is expressly made in the name of the Governor. Secondly, it specifically revokes the communication dated 17.10.1977. The Division Bench has proceeded to consider the case based on the communication dated 14.05.2009 which we must note is a case which even the writ petitioners did not have. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition would show that the case of the writ petitioners was premised on the order dated 14.12.2009 bringing about the revocation of the order dated 17.10.1977. Even the petitioners did not, in other words, set up a case that 14.05.2009 is an order revoking 14.05.2009. In matters of this nature, the role of proper pleadings must be emphasised for the parties join issue on the basis of the case which has been built up before the Court. We are of the view, therefore, that the reasoning which has been employed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments will stand set aside. There will be no orders as to costs.” 10. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that the order dated 17.10.1977 is still in force and after reorganisation, it is adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. As such, the order dated 14.12.2009 13 would only come into effect when it made in the name of the Governor and revokes the communication dated 17.10.1977. Since, it has not been revoked, as such the benefit of order dated 17.10.1977 is required to be given to the petitioners as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sinha (Supra). 11. The petitioners are entitled for grant of relief claimed by them for promotion from the post of Fieldsman to the post of Assistant Project Range Officer. They are also entitled to get the said benefit from the date when they have completed their training i.e. from 01.01.2017 and to get other consequential benefits. The respondent authorities are directed to promote the petitioners as per their entitlement and to give them all consequential service benefits on account of their promotion. The said exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby allowed. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge Vishakha