Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 16:18:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:28884-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 416 of 2025 1 - Ku. Pushpa Verma D/o Late Ramcharan Verma Aged About 53 Years Posted As Assistant Grade-III At Collectorate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Mahavir Sahu S/o Late Shri Shriram Sahu Aged About 50 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-III At Collectorate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Kisun Lal Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhani Ram Nirmalkar Aged About 61 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-III At Collectorate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Punarad Ram Patel S/o Shri Murha Ram Patel Aged About 55 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-III At Collectorate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) versus ... Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Kishore Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Shriram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-III At Collectorate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondents For Appellants For State-Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 30 .0 6 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. 2. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 18 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 5. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1258 of 2022, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed
Decision
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners were appointed on the post of Section Writer on the temporary basis against the vacant post of Section Writer vide order dated 30.01.1985, since then the petitioners are performing work continuously since the date of appointment without any complaint against them, thus the petitioners have given their services past 35 years to the respondents. Similar 3 situated employees, who are appointed on temporary basis on the post of Section Writer had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court bearing WPS No.1959/2014, which was allowed by the order dated 19.11.2015, wherein the Hon'ble Court relying upon the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and also relying upon the circular passed by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 and also relying upon the decisions in a similar matter passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and thereby the Hon'ble Single Bench in order dated 19.11.2015 allowed the writ petition passed by the similar situated employees and directed to consider the case for regularization. 7. Against the above order, the State Government filed Writ Appeal No.178/2016 and the similarly situated petitioners also filed Writ Appeal No.396/2016 seeking regularization with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 13.05.2019, dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State Government affirming the order of the Hon'ble Singh Bench and also directed that the regularization shall be given effect from the date on which his junior has been given benefit of regularization. As the case of the petitioners were similarly situated, they have filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was registered as WPS No. 2652/2020 seeking direction for regularization in the post of Section Writer or any other equal post relying upon the decisions of the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order 4 dated 13.07.2020 directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of regularization of the petitioners in the post of Section Writer or any other post corresponding to the post of Section Writer and directed to take decision as per the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court and by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, in the light of the order dated 13.07.2020, respondent No.2 issued the order dated 15.10.2020 and the petitioners were regularized/appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Subsequently, when the petitioners found that they have not been regularized with the retrospective effect i.e. 21.04.1994, when their juniors were regularized, they made representation on 05.11.2020 to the authority relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in WA No.178/2016 seeking regularization with retrospective effect as directed in the order and also on the count that other similarly situated has been given regularization with retrospective effect and the regularization order dated 15.09.2020 of the similarly situated persons is being filed. The above representation of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 without appreciating the direction given in WA No.178/2016 and the claim of the petitioners thereby seeking regularization with retrospective effect has been rejected. 8. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent authorities, the appellants/writ petitioners have filed the writ petition bearing WPS No.1258/2022 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2025. 5 9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the appellants have served as Section Writer for 35 years and ultimately after the order of the Hon'ble Court in WPS No.2652/2020, they were regularized/appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III, but the regularization was not given with retrospective effect, though they were entitled for regularization with retrospective effect, since their junior was promoted i.e. 21.04.1994 as per the direction issued in WA No. 178/2016 and WA No.396/2016, which specifically directed to make regularization from the date when juniors have been given benefit of regularization. He further submits that a direction was given to the appellants vide order dated 13.07.2020, wherein the Hon'ble Court had directed to decide the representation after considering the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court and also the MP High Court, but while passing the regularization order dated 15.10.2020, the authorities are not considered the direction passed in WA No.1278/2016 and 396/2016 though it was brought into the knowledge of the respondent authorities. It has been contended that the appellants are entitled for regularization with retrospective effect i.e. since 21.04.1994. It has been further contended that similarly situated persons were also regularized 6 and they have been given regularization with retrospective effect i.e. 21.04.1994 and the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the said fact and has dismissed the writ petition. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants were regularized on 15.10.2020 and they again made representation for their regularization with retrospective effect. The said representation was rejected by the order dated 12.10.2021 as the appellants could not claim the said benefit based on the settled law. It is submitted that, prior to regularization, the appellants were working on temporary basis and as per the order dated 13.07.2020, passed in WPS No. 2652/2020, by the Hon'ble Court, the appellants have been regularized on 15.10.2020, therefore, they are entitled for the benefits of regularization only from 15.10.2020 and they are not eligible for the benefits of regularization with retrospective effect because prior to regularization, they were working on temporary basis. As such, learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7 13. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 in the following terms:- “8. The MP High Court in its order dated 5-3- 2010 passed in WP No.2762/2010 (Bhupendra Kumar Dharya v. State of M.P. & Another) followed the order passed by the SAT in Ram Bahadur Sharma (supra), which, in turn, was decided on the basis of the order passed by the SAT in OA filed by the petitioners. Another order of similar nature was passed by the MP High Court on 5-3-2010 in WP No.2763/2010 (Ramshankar Chourasia v. State of M.P. & Another). 9. Since it is the settled law that the order of regularization should be prospective and not retrospective, the petitioners are not entitled for consequential reliefs. (See: the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Sheela Rani reported in (2007) 15 SCC 230 and the decision of this Court in Nand Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others decided on 25-8-2015 in WPL No. 197 of 2013). 10. Consequently, the relief prayed by the petitioners for grant of benefit of regularization with retrospective effect can not be granted. The petitioners have already been regularized with prospective date. 11. As a sequel, the writ petitions are dismissed.” 8 14. Considering the matter in its entirety, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order holding that the appellants are not entitled for benefit of regularization with retrospective effect as they have already been regularized with prospective date. 15. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu