Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1813 of 2019 Arun Kumar Pradhan S/o Late Shri S.R. Pradhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Hig - 65, Sagar Deep Enclave, Uslapur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Through Registrar General, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along For State For Respondent No. 2 with Ms. Ishita Niyogi, Advocate : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 01.2025 1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.07.2014 passed by the learned Lok Adalat inter alia on the ground that no such concession was given at the time of hearing of WPS No. 465 of 2013 to dismiss it without reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a fresh petition. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was a Judicial Officer 2 against whom an order of compulsory retirement was passed on 26.03.2011 after completing 20 years of service. The order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was transferred to this Court which was registered as WPS No. 465 of 2013. The matter remained pending for a considerable period; therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Chhattisgarh to place the matter before the learned Lok Adalat on 26.07.2014. It is also stated in the application that the petitioner be granted liberty to revive his prayer at the appropriate stage, if occasion arises. Pursuant to the application moved by the petitioner, the matter was placed before the learned Lok Adalat on 26.07.2014. A docket was submitted by the petitioner before the learned Lok Adalat and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw that petition and it was accordingly dismissed. 3. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated 26.07.2014 by filing the writ petition on 12.05.2019. In para 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. However, the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order dated 26.07.2014 and came to know that no liberty has been granted to file a fresh writ petition. 4. It is pleaded that the order dated 26.07.2014 passed by the learned Lok Adalat is illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the facts. It is also stated that the learned Lok Adalat overlooked the application moved by the petitioner for the listing of the case, where a specific prayer was made for the withdrawal of the petition with the liberty to file a fresh one, if required. 5. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate would submit that WPS No. 465 of 2013 remained pending for a considerable period; therefore, an application was moved by the petitioner to withdraw that petition with the liberty to file 3 a fresh one, if the occasion arises. She would further submit that an application was moved before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and the matter was placed before the learned Lok Adalat on 26.07.2014. She would also submit that there was no compromise between the parties and in the docket too, there is no such pleading and there was a specific prayer in the application to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file a fresh, if the occasion arises. It is contended that the order dated 26.07.2014 would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner as he is unable to challenge the order of compulsory retirement before this Court. It is further contended that the petition filed by similarly situated Government servants against the order of compulsory retirement has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2018. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly. They would further submit that a docket was submitted by the petitioner himself, wherein, a prayer was made to not press the petition and accordingly an order was passed by the learned Lok Adalat. They would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. A perusal of the documents including the records of the learned Lok Adalat would show that an application was moved before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for listing of WPS No. 465 of 2013. In the application, it was stated that the petitioner may be permitted
Decision
to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh one if the occasion arises. It is worth mentioning here that the application moved by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) was not placed before 4 the learned Lok Adalat. At the time of hearing, a docket was submitted by the petitioner on 26.07.2014 itself, wherein, a prayer was made to not press the petition and no liberty was sought for. 9. The learned Lok Adalat taking into consideration the docket submitted by the petitioner, granted permission to withdraw the petition, and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. As there was no prayer to file the writ petition afresh; no such liberty was granted. The order was passed by the learned Lok Adalat on 26.07.2014 and according to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a free copy was supplied to the petitioner and in the writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere stated that no such copy was supplied. 10. For the sake of arguments, a copy of the order dated 26.07.2014 was not supplied to the petitioner, but it was within his knowledge that his petition had been dismissed as withdrawn, and thereafter, he did not take any steps to challenge the order of compulsory retirement for a period of five years. The present petition has been filed on 12.05.2019. It is argued by Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate that a petition filed by a similarly situated Government servant has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench in the year 2018. It appears that when the petitioner came to know about the disposal of the petition filed by a similarly situated person, and particularly that his petition was allowed; he approached this Court therein challenging the order passed by the learned Lok Adalat dated 26.07.2014. 11. In para 7, the petitioner has nowhere stated that when he came to know about the order dated 26.07.2014, when he applied for the certified copy of that order and when that order was delivered to the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner has not explained the delay part properly. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails 5 and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to cost(s).S $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge