Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. for the State Mr v. K. Pandey
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10689-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 152 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Harishankar Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Stenographer, Grade- I I, Office Of The Collector, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, C.G. (Res. No. 7 In Wps/446/2025) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 3 - The Deputy Commissioner (Development) Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 4 - Rajkumar Khunte Deputy Commissioner (Development), Chairman Departmental Promotion Committee, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 5 - Abhay Kumar Sinha Accountant Member Departmental Promotion Committee, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 6 - Vijay Kumar Paswan Establishment Clerk, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 7 - Sachin Goyal S/o Naresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 37 Years Working On The 2 Post Of Stenographer, Grade- III In The Office Of Commissioner, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. (Peti. In WPS/446/2025) ... Respondent(s) For appellant For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. for the State Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate for the Res. No. 7 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/03/2025 1. 2. Heard, Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 446/2025 with the following prayer:- “a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal To Division Bench) Act, 2006. (b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 446 of 2025 (Annexure A/1), in the interest of justice. (c) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the Writ Petition (S) No. 446 of 2025 filed by the respondent no. 7 to the learned Single Judge for passing fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties like present appellant. (d) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of appellant, including cost of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner Sachin Goyal was 3 initially appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-III on 15.02.2013 and joined on 26.02.2013. The respondent No. 7 Sanjay Kumar Kashyap joined
Decision
as Stenographer Grade-III on 13.04.2013. It is the case of the writ petitioner that after the appointment, the writ petitioner was discharging his duty with utmost sincerity but in the meantime all of sudden the respondent No.2/Commissioner Surguja Division,Ambikapur, passed an order whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 27.06.2013. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2013 the writ petitioner filed a WP(S) No. 1947 of 2013 in which an interim order has been passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 09.07.2013 had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 27.06.2013 and thereafter the petitioner was continued in service. Subsequent a DPC was held for promotion on 01.09.2021 and in the said DPC the sealed cover procedure was adopted with respect to the case of the petitioner because of the reasons that the WP(S) No. 1947 of 2013 filed by the writ petitioner is pending before the High Court and his probation period was not completed. Otherwise, the writ petitioner was eligible for promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade-II. In the said DPC two candidates namely Ku. Shaba Parvin and Shashikant Singh were found suitable. In other DPC was again convened on 09.11.2022, in which the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered because of the pendency of the said writ petition and also that his probation period was not completed. The respondent No.7/Sanjay Kumar Kashyap who was junior to the petitioner has been considered and found suitable for promotion and accordingly his name was recommended for promotion and ultimately he was given promotion vide order dated 10.11.2022. 4. Vide order dated 03.04.2024 the WP(S) No. 1947 of 2013 was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the order of termination dated 4 27.06.2013 was set-aside. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has moved an application for regularization of his services after completing the probation period and also for grant of seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. The respondent No.2 regularized the services of the petitioner vide order dated 07.06.2024 and granted annual increment and his pay fixation has also been done on 16.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner moved his representation for grant of promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade-II from the post of Stenographer Grade-III by opening the sealed cover procedure with all consequential benefits but the same has not been considered by the respondent No.2. 5. Since the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities, he again filed WP(S) No. 7611 of 2024 before this Court which was also disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2024 directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation moved by the petitioner within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, thereafter, on 12.12.2024 the petitioner filed a detailed representation but the same has not been properly considered by the respondent authorities and has passed the impugned order (Annexure P/1) and rejected his representation which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and remitted the matter back to the respondent No.2/Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, with a direction to pass appropriate speaking order after considering the entire aspect of the matter and by doing so, it is further directed to decide each point separately stating that why the petitioner is not being considered for promotion. The respondent No.2/Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, is also directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a pragmatic manner by giving a speaking order within a period of 2 months and the said order 17.01.2025 5 is challenged by the respondent No. 7 of the writ petition Sanjay Kumar Kashyap in the present writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is erroneous on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not held that the writ petitioner would be entitled for service benefits, seniority or salary during period of when he was put up service and also regarding his entitlement of promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade-II. He would further submits that if the writ petitioner/present respondent No. 7 is promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II then the same will adversely affect the promotion of the present writ appellant on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and despite the writ appellant arrayed as party in the writ petition, he was not afford any opportunity of hearing to protect his rights. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State would submit that the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the authorities concerned to decide the case after passing the reasoned order in which there is no illegality or infirmity. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7/writ petitioner would also supported the impugned order and have submitted that there is no adverse order passed by learned Single Judge and the matter was remitted back to pass the reasoned order there is no order passed against the interest of the writ appellant at present, therefore, there is no cause of action arises in his favour. The writ appellant has challenged the impugned order only on apprehension that his right would be affected if the authorities have decided the case in favour of the writ petitioner, Therefore, writ appeal does not have any merits and liable to be dismissed. 6 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge and also considering that the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 17.01.2025 disposed of the writ petition filed by the present respondent No. 7 remitted the matter back for passing of the reasoned order on all aspects of the matter and further considering that the present writ appellant is having right to protect his interest before the authorities concerned we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. After considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Project Director UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. vs. Saroj Maurya and others, in Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023, the learned Single Judge has passed the order in which we do not find any illegality or perversity and we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be considered by the authorities concerned who is ceased with the matter who shall pass the order after hearing the respective parties. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.27 10:54:10 +0530