High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.11 11:52:23 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 594 of 2025 2025:CGHC:39681-DB NAFR Ved Ram Patel S/o. Late Chhotu Ram Patel, Aged About 52 Years Workshop Assistant, Boys Industrial Training Institute Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (Tribal Development) Bilaspur 3. 4. 5. 6. (C.G.) Collector (Tribal Welfare) Korba (Now C.G.) Commissioner, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class And Minority Welfare Department Raipur (C.G.) Collector, (Tribal Development) Korba, Dist. Korba (C.G.) Director, Employment And Training Women Polytechnic Campus, Byran Bazar Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.08.2025 1. 2. 3. Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2225/2023 and the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in REVP No.
Decision
140/2025, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and review petition. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to by his original designation as “petitioner”) was appointed on a temporary basis in the respondent department on compassionate ground after the death of his father. He was engaged as a Chaukidar on collector rate (Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur) and posted at Boys Government Industrial Training Institute, Korba. Copy of the appointment order dated 08.12.1994 was filed as Annexure P/1 in WPS No. 2225/2023 at page No. 10–10A. One Smt. Jamuna Bai, widow of Late Nanaki Dau Yadav, was also appointed on compassionate ground as a Waterwoman on Collector rate. Similarly, one Ram Gwal Yadav was appointed on compassionate ground as an Assistant Cook for 89 days on Collector rate with effect from 01.01.1993. The similarity in all three appointments is that they were made under Government Notification GAD Memo No. Kramank/C/3-4/94/3/1 dated 10.06.1994, and Memo of the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bhopal No. Stha./3- 2/1343/94/20195 dated 20.06.1994. All appointments were temporary, 3 on collector rate, and made on compassionate grounds. The date of joining and date of regularization of the above-mentioned three employees are as follows: Name Date of Joining Date of Regularisation Ved Ram Patel (Petitioner) 08.12.1994 19.08.1998 (Page 11–11A) Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav 01.07.1991 10.06.1994 (Page 12–12A) Ram Gwal Yadav 01.01.1993 23.07.1998 (Page 13–13A) 4. That the educational/technical qualifications of these three employees are as under: Ved Ram Patel Obtained a Temporary National Trade (Petitioner): Certificate in Welder Trade from ITI Korba, under the State Board of Examination for the academic session 1992–1993 (Annexure R/1- 6/1, Page 7 of the return). Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav Qualification not disclosed by the Government. Ram Gwal Yadav Qualification not disclosed in the return, but it is learned that he obtained an ITI certificate in Welder Trade in 1985–1986. 5. That the details of benefits extended upon regularization are as under: Name Date of Regularization Details of Benefits Ved Ram Patel 19.08.1998 Regularised as Workshop Assistant (Petitioner) w.e.f. 19.08.1998 (the date of order), but not granted benefits retrospectively from the date of notification i.e. 10.06.1994. Smt. Jamuna Bai 10.06.1994 Regularised as Peon w.e.f. Yadav 10.06.1994, order issued on 13.05.1998; granted 4 Ram Gwal Yadav 23.07.1998 Regularised as Workshop Assistant, arrears, pay grade, and seniority from 10.06.1994. order issued on 26.06.1999; granted salary arrears and benefits from 10.06.1994. 6. Under these circumstances, it is clear that although all three employees were regularized under the notification dated 10.06.1994 and were later promoted. Only the petitioner was denied the benefits of salary arrears and seniority, while the other two were granted these benefits. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner had already obtained the ITI certificate in Welder Trade during the academic year 1992–1993, i.e., prior to his appointment on 08.12.1994, and was thus technically qualified at the time of entry into service. 7. In the reply filed by the respondents (paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5, Page 4), it has been stated that the post of Workshop Assistant is highly technical, and requires specific qualifications. It was further contended that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of joining and had obtained the certificate subsequently; therefore, he was not entitled to retrospective benefits from 08.12.1994. The respondents have admitted that Shri Ram Gwal Yadav possessed the required qualification at the time of his initial appointment, and therefore, he was granted all benefits from the date of the government notification, i.e., 10.06.1994. Based on the respondents’ submissions, learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.04.2025 dismissed the writ petition being WPS No. 2225/2023. Against the said order, a review petition being Review Petition No. 140/2025 was preferred by the petitioner, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide para 5 of the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) it has been wrongly 5 held by learned Single Judge that Smt. Jamuna Bai and Ram Gwal Yadav have been given the benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Peon as Ram Gwal Yadav was not promoted to the post of Peon but Workshop Assistant as is evident from Annexure P-4 page No. 13-13A to the writ petition and this apparent error is on the face of record which ought to have been corrected in review petition and therefore parity at par was claimed by the petitioner, which has been denied by learned Single Judge. He further submits that further finding of learned Single Judge in the same para that the petitioner was extended the benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Workshop Assistant after he obtained the requisite technical qualification is further wrong as it is obvious on the face of the record that he entered service w.e.f. 08.12.1994 (Annexure P-), page No. 10-10A to the writ petition and before this date he had obtained the certificate in Welder Trade from ITI, Korba in the year 1992- 93 (Annexure R-1-6/1, page No. 7 to the return) and this apparent error would have been rectified by learned Single Judge in review petition and unfortunately the said obvious error could not be corrected in review petition. He also submits that vide para 5 of the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed in Review Petition No.140/2025 (Annexure A-2) the same error again occurred when it has been mentioned that the remaining two employees were working on the post of Peon for looking the position at a glance, the petitioner has supplied a chart (page No. 7 & 8 to the review petition) mentioning the date of joining, Govt. notification (under which they were regularized), date of regularization (and the post under which they were regularized), benefit extended and qualification (with date) when they obtained certificate in ITI in which it has been clearly depicted the status of Ram Gwal Yadav. As such, writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by learned 6 Single Judge in writ petition review petition deserve to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State supports the impugned orders and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has dismissed the writ petition and thereafter review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, which warrant no interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the documents appended with writ petition. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar on Collector rate on compassionate ground in the year 1994. However, on account of acquisition of higher qualification of technical cadre, the post of Workshop Assistant was given to the petitioner in the year 1998 and extended the benefit of regular pay scale, whereas the similarly situated persons namely Smt. Jamuna Bai and Ramgwal Yadav have been given the benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Peon. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity at par with those employees, and as such, the impugned action on the part of the respondents cannot be stated as illegal and arbitrary. The benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Workshop Assistant has rightly been extended to the petitioner after obtaining the requisite technical qualification. The action of the authorities is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. The petitioner failed to establish his case by furnishing cogent and sufÏcient reason. 12. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he 7 entered service w.e.f. 08.12.1994 and before this date he had obtained the certificate in Welder Trade from ITI, Korba in the year 1992-93 is concerned, from perusal of the document (Annexure R-1-6/1), it transpires that the said certificate was issued only on 27.7.95 i.e. after entering into service by the petitioner. As such, this contention deserves to be rejected. 13. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned orders passed in writ petition as well as in review petition, also perusing the document (Annexure R-1-6/1) filed by the respondents in writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as well as in review petition, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the same. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu