P.N. Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.19 13:53:17 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:17377-DB NAFR WA No. 241 of 2025 P.N. Singh S/o Late Ramji Singh Aged About 74 Years R/o Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur C.G. versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar Irrigation Colony Raipur, Raipur C.G. 3 - Member Of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar Irrigation Colony Raipur, Raipur C.G. 4 - Surya Prakash Shukla, Director Engineer Cum Secretary Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar Irrigation Colony Raipur, Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State-respondent No.1 : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16 .04.2025 1 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through Video Conferencing. 2 Heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 3 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the order dated 13.02.2025 [Annexure A/1] passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.[S] No.6898/2018 parties being “P.N. Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others” may kindly be set aside and any other relief including giving the compensation to the appellant and any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the appellant.” 4 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ 3 Petition (S) No.6898 of 2018 (P.N. Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Decision
and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 5 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed with respondent No. 2/Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission; he got retired from services after completion of 60 years. Thereafter, he was appointed on a contract basis for a period of one year on the post of Secretary of respondent No.2/Commission vide order dated 06.03.2012. The period of contract was extended from time to time for a period of one year and it continued till 06.09.2018. Before the expiry of the period of one year, a decision was taken by the Chairperson of the Commission, thereby, extending the services of the appellant/writ petitioner on a contract basis for a period of one year from 06.09.2018 to 30.09.2019 by order dated 22.06.2018; the order was passed prior to the expiry of the contract period, and subsequently, respondent No. 2/Commission cancelled the order dated 22.06.2018 vide order dated 05.09.2018. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner made a representation before the Commission and the same was also rejected vide order dated 01.10.2018. 6 Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.10.2018, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6898/2018 before the learned Single Judge, which was 4 dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2025. 7 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the authorities concerned did not have jurisdiction to issue an order of cancellation which was passed by the earlier Chairman dated 22.06.2018. It has been contended that the Chairman alone had the power to extend the services for a period of one year and such power was exercised by the authority which could have not been interfered with by the Commission. It has been further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 9 On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and jointly submit that the order dated 22.06.2018 was not passed by the Commission and it was passed by the Chairperson only. They would further submit that Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2003”) defines ‘Commission’ and it includes ‘Chairperson’ along with members; therefore, the order 5 dated 22.06.2018 cannot be construed as an order passed by the Commission. It has been contended that according to Regulation 24 of the C.G. State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 2005”), the maximum contractual period may be one year which may be extended up to the period of three years and in exceptional situation, it can be extended for a further period of 5 years. It has been further contended that the Chairman of the Commission had no authority of law to extend the period of contract for more than five years. They have submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has already served for more than five years; therefore, he has no right to continue on the post of Secretary with respondent No. 2. They lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 11 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record as well as after analyzing Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as also the Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 6 “6. Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines ‘Commission’ which reads thus:- “82 (4). The State Commission shall consist of not more than three Members, including the Chairperson.” 7. According to provisions of this Section, the State Commission shall itself consist of not more than three members including the Chairperson. In the present case, the order dated 22.06.2018 was issued by the Chairperson alone, and there was no consent of the other two members; therefore, it can safely be held that it was not a decision taken by the Commission. 8. Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005 deals with the maximum Contract period and the same is reproduced herein-below :- “24. Contract Service If the exigencies of the Commission’s service so demands and after recording reasons therefore, any vacant post in the Commission may be temporarily filled through contract for a period normally not exceeding one year at a time and for a total period of three years. In exceptional cases the Commission may extend this period to five years.” 9. According to the provisions of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005, the services of a contractual employee working under the 7 Commission cannot be extended for more than five years. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has already completed five years of services in the post of Secretary, and thereafter, without obtaining consent of the other members, a decision was taken by the Chairperson to extend the services for a period of one more year, which was in contravention with the provisions of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005 as well as Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 11. Taking into consideration the above- stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 2. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 12 Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, it has been reflected that the appellant/writ petitioner has already completed five years of services in the post of Secretary, and thereafter, without obtaining consent of the other members, a decision was taken by the Chairperson to extend the services for a period of one more year, which was in contravention with the provisions of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005 as well as Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 8 13 Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6898 of 2018 (P.N. Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 14 In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu