Allowed

U.K. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2014WPS/2558/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed the State to consider the petitioner for promotion to Assistant Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted, after the petitioner successfully claimed seniority backdated to June 1992.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for promotion to Assistant Engineer as of 19-9-2008 when juniors were promoted.

U.K. Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

$K¥$g§1 $E%”?1
/
Cxé WW”

¶2

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR.

¶3

WP[S] Noz§£312011

¶4

/ Petitioner(5‘): U..K.Dewangan, w S/o Shri. P.R. Dewangan,, Aged about 50 years, R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Dewanganpara, Champa, Jajjgir-Champa Dist, CG State.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Respondent(s):‘

¶7

4 w
O/g wkoéky’..... \ -
EL
at,
V)<br>

¶8

/	1. State of C.G. Through: Secretary, Public Works Department” Govt. of CG, DKS Bhawan, Raipur.
	2. Public Engineer-in-Chief, Works Department, Raipur CG State.
61/	3 Thoran Lal Thakur ^Asst Englneer Public Works Department, Bridge Sub—Division, Surajpur, Sarguja Dist,” CG State.
g	4. Shri Sanjay G. Chauhan, Asst Engineer Public Works Department, Sub-Division, Mungeli, Bilaspur CG State.
	5 C S Vindhya Ra], Asst Engineer Sub-Division, Champa, Janjgir Champa Dist, CG State.

¶9

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS s ORDER s DIRECTIONISI ETC.

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BlLASPlJR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.2558 OF 2011

¶11

PETITIONER U.K. Dewangan

¶12

Versus

¶13

RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Others

¶14

(Writ^{Petitionunder AItiCle226of theConstitutionofIndia)}

¶15

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra,^J.

¶16

Present :- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt.^{AdvocatefortheState.}

¶17

Shri A’Khilesh Kumar, Advocate^{forrespondentsNo.3to5.}

¶18

_ ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passed^{onthis3rddayofJuly,2014)}

¶19

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking promotion to the post^{ofAssistantEngineerfromthedatehisjuniors} i.e. respondents No.3 to 5 have been promoted^{videorderdated19-9-2008} (Annexure — P/1) and for granting of consequentiai benefits.

¶20

The petitioner was appointed^{asdailywageJuniorEngineerinthe} Department of Public^Workson 1-12-1984. He was removed^from the service in the year^{1985,whichledto”?aisingofindustrialdispute} by the petitioner, which^{wasultimatelyreferredtotheLabourCourtfor} adjudication. The Labour Court passed an award on 26-2-1996 (Annexure -— P/4) reinstating the petitioner in the service along with all consequential benefits. In due course the petitioner^{wasallocatedto} the State of Chhattlsgarh wherein the hnal gradation list showing seniority position as^{on1-4-2006was} prepared^{andbasedonthislist,} the department^issued promotion^{orderson19—9-2007} promoting¹⁹ Junior Engineers to^the post^{of AssistantEngineers.}

¶21

¶22

¶23

It has been argued that the petitioner having been reinstated in the service pursuant to the Labour Court‘s order dated 26-2—1 996 he was at Ieast entitled for reckoning his seniority from the said date and on according proper seniority he would be placed above the respondents No.3 to 5 and, as such, since they have been promoted, the petitioner was also entitled to be considered for promotion vide order dated 19-9—2008.

¶24

“u.”

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents^{No.3to6wouldsubmitthat} 2. the petitioner's^{representationfor} grant^{ofsenioritywassenttothe} Engineer—in-Chief, PWD, MP, as the period in question was covering the period prior to 1-11—2000 also. The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD,^MP, vide its order dated 16-11-2007 (Annexure — R/1) rejected the petitioner's representation and this order is not under challenge, therefore, the writ petition deserves^{tobedismissed.} It has also been argued that the petitioner was placed^{belowtherespondentNo.3to5} .in the gradation list (Annexure^— R/2) prepared showing position^as on 1-4-2006 and this gradation list is not under challenge, therefore, the present writ petition^deservesto be dismissed on this count also.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel appearing^forthe parties, perused^the pleadings^{andthedocumentsappendedthereto,} i-t would appear that the petitioner's representation submitted^{beforetheStateGovernment-} was sent for comments to the Engineer¥in—Chief,^{PWD,Chhattisgarh} and the said authority by its communication dated 27-06-2008 (Annexure —- P/9) recommended that the petitioner is entitled for counting his seniority for counting the period from 5-11-1985 to

¶27

31-12—1^988ason duty. Pursuant^{tothiscommunication,theState} — R/3) an order on 23—7-2009 (Annexure Government passed granting^{himseniorityfrom} 1-6-1992. When^{thematterstoodthus,} the petitioner^{againmadearepresentationforgrantofseniorityand} promotion^{fromthedatehisjuniorshavebeenpromoted,however,} when no^{orderwaspassedhehasapproachedthisCourt.}

¶28

¶29

¶30

1-6-1^992he indisputably, if the petitioner^{isaccordedseniorityw.e.f.} would^be piaced^{abovetherespondentsNo.3to5inthegradationlist} list published^{intheyear2011showing} and,^infact, in the gradation the^{senioritypositionason1-4-2010thepetitionerhasbeenplaced} claim No.3 to 5, therefore, the petitioner‘s above the respondents appears^tobe justified.

¶31

in^{viewofthefactthattheStateGovernment} For the^foregoingand 4 R/3) the order dated 23-7-2008 (Annexure has already passed him seniority w.e.f. 1-6—1992, it is directed that the granting petitioner's^{casebeconsideredforpromotionw.e.f.19-9-2008when} on the post of to him have been promoted the persons junior Assistant Engineer subject, however, to fulfill other eligibility ’éuitable in all respects, is found conditions. lf the petitioner necessary^{ordersmaybepassedbytheStateGovernmentwithina} reasonable^time.

¶32

. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated . . above. No order^astocosts.

¶33

Gowri

U.K. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.K. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.G.Infrastructure Dev.Corporation Vs Niman Khalkho and Ors.

Shivchran Suryawansi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Dayalal Meghji And Company Vs Smt.kamla Bai And Ors.

Punit Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Neelanchal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Union of India and Another Vs P.K. Bhowmick and Another