Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.2456 of 2023 1 - Jayprakash Chandel S/o Devdas Chandel Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sondh, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pavindra Kumar Baghel S/o Ferha Ram Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pendritarai, Post Semariya, Tahsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Narendra Kumar Sarang S/o Late Subechand Sarang Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Pendritarai, Post Semariya, Tahsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus 2 - Director Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Division Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Berla, Development Block Berla (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No.1760 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Yadram Ghritlahare S/o Shri Gandhiram Grithlahre, Aged About 33 Years Presently Posted At Government Primary School Mohabhatta, Block Berala, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Mansa Ram Kosle, S/o Bijeram Kosle Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted At Government Primary School Koshpatar, Block Berala, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Gopal Das Kurre S/o Shri Babulal Kurre Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted At Government Primary School Mohabhatta, Block Berala, District Bemetara (C.G.) -2- Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer, Berala, Development Block Berala (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners For respondents/State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.09.2025 1. Heard. 2. In both petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the seniority of the petitioners on the present post W.e.f. 1/07/2018 according to the policy dated 30/06/2018 and further direct the respondent District Education Officer, Bemetara to prepare a fresh gradation list to the post of Assistant Teacher calculating the seniority from the date of issuance of the policy dated 30/6/2018. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to amend the order of absorption of the petitioners dated 31/10/2020 by treating their services absorbed from 01/07/2018 on the present post of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Teacher. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final gradation list as stood on 01/04/2021 issued on 25/01/2022 (ANNEXURE P/10) and issue a fresh gradation list after taking decision on the objections raised by the petitioners. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and 3 proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Mr. Pali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat, Berla in the year 2007. He would contend that their services were illegally terminated on 23.06.2014. The orders of termination were challenged by filing WPS No.874/2017 and WPS No.4177/2018 before this Court and both petitions were allowed vide order dated 31.01.2019 and the orders of termination were quashed. 4. Mr.Pali would submit that when the petitioners resumed their services, their earlier services were not taken as service period and therefore,
Decision
WPS No.4259 of 2019 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2019 wherein, the specific observation was made that in such a case, where termination order has been found non-existent, the petitioners shall be treated as continuous. Mr. Pali would further submit that according to the policy decision of the State, services of Shiksha Karmis were absorbed with the School Education Department with effect from 1st July, 2018 but their services have been absorbed with effect from 31.10.2020, whereas, they had completed 8 years of qualifying service in the year 2015 itself. He would contend that specific observations were made in this regard in WPS No.4259 of 2019 but the respondent authorities failed to consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption of their services with effect from 1st July, 2018. He would further contend that a -4- direction may be issued to respondent No.4/School Education Officer, Bemetara (C.G.) to consider the claims of the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pali. He would submit that as there was no specific direction with regard to absorption of the services of the petitioners, therefore, no decision has been taken. He would further submit that both petitions are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. In WPS No.4259 of 2019, the Coordinate Bench in para 4 held as under : “4.On perusal of the record, it appears that the termination order dated 23.06.2014 has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2019, in W.P.(S) No. 874/2017 and W.P.(S) No.4177/2018, therefore, in such case, where a termination order has been found non-existent by this Court, the petitioners shall be treated as continuous.” 8. As there was specific observation to reckon their earlier period of service after quashment of orders of termination, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to consider the claims of the petitioners with regard to absorption of their services with effect from 1st July, 2018 pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts and observations made herein above, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation(s) before respondent No.4/School Education Officer, Bemetara (C.G.) 5 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the said authority is directed to take appropriate decision in an objective manner strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of further 60 days. 10.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), both petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge