C.G. Bn Ncc. Durg v. Amar Singh Pale S
Case Details
MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.11 10:40:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:46104-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 667 of 2025 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director National Cadet Core (State Cell), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Administrative Officer National Cadet Core (State Cell), Chhattisgarh Raipur, District- Raipur 4 - Dt- Col Commanding Officer 37 C.G. Bn Ncc. Durg ... Appellant(s) versus Amar Singh Pale S/o Durjan Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o 115, Mohan- Nagar, Durg, P.O. Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellants / State. Also heard Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel for respondent on I.A. No. 01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 01/2025), the same is allowed and the matter is heard finally. 3. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8229/2024 (Amar Singh Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein was disposed off by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 26/2024 (The State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Ramgulal Nagvanshi) vide order dated 20.01.2025, observing as follows : “10. 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, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order while relying upon the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by- passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order observing as follows :- "8. In view of the aforesaid, it is explicit that a case of regularization which has attained finality and was not subjudice would not come within the purview of exception to the aforesaid rule and the petitioner's case would thus fall within the purview thereof, as his services were regularized vide Annexure-P/3 and without complying with the principles of natural justice, a person who has been regularized cannot be deprived to again make contingency employee. 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order and the action of the respondents are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and grant pay in terms of the order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure-P/3). The arrears shall be calculated and paid within next 4 months after producing the certified copy of this order before the concerned authority, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 15.6.2015 till its realization. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition and all the pending applications stand disposed of." 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 13. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed." They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 26/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 26/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 26/2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in WA No. 26/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet