Disposed

Dhanesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jul 2014WPS/2817/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an absorption order granting Deputy Rangers seniority and status. The Court held that passing an order with civil consequences without a hearing violates Article 14 and that the cancellation appeared motivated by trade union threats rather than independent application of mind.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhanesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

(‘4:{2ak

$mg§@ @mh‘

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHhATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) 'No.‘ W.P.(s) .....3.$JEE...... 2009

¶6

(Single^{Bench—Service} Matter)

Petiitoner

/ Dhanesh Kumar Sahu

aged about 45 Years,

S/o Shri Mehttar Das Sahu,

¶11

. t.
Deputy Ranger,
Forest Division, Dutg.
Tah. & Distt. Durg
Versus
w fState
Respondents — 1. of Chhattisgarh

¶12

Forest Division, Dutg.

¶13

Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶14

Through: .—Principal Secretary,

¶15

Forest Department,

¶16

Govt. of Chhattisgarh,
V
Secretariat D K.S. Bhawan, GrE. Road,
Mt
Raipur (C G )
Wpt’vn cuP
0 S Yr/Aw 2 Jiéad Chief Conservator of Forest,
‘j/Jl”
Chhattisgarh Raipur(CG)
. y -
3 Shrimr Nandi
%m1
CL/d (Indian Forest Servrce)
w
L
i\ Gonservator of Forest
Circie, Durg (C.G.)
\Durg
/’
—————————-———_____._____________rcllTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA

¶17

Facts of the case briefly stated are that at the relevant tlme the petitioners were working as Cinema Operator Prmcrpal Chief‘ Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh Issued an order on 22 12 2003 statmg that In the regional set up of the department post^ofForester Forest ExtenSIon Assrstant Surveyor and Cinema - I Operator have been clubbed together as all the posts were carrying similar pay scale and on the said basis, 1343 posts of Foresters have been sanctioned by the State Government. Therefore, all such Cinema Operators, who have obtained Forester y^{trainingshould} be absorbed as Forester and be deputed to work on the post They were accorded seniority from the date of Initial appomtment as Cinema Operator.

¶18

' Pursuant to this order, a” the petitioners were absorbed as Cinema Operator and were accorded seniority from the date. of initial appointment. ln due course, the petitioners were promoted as -Deputy Rangers and at the time of issuance of impugned order, they were working as Deputy Rangers. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that’the Impugned order has been passed in utter Violation of prInCIples of naturai justice He would further submit that In the set up of department, post of Cinema Operator is no longer available therefore the Impugned order has been passed Without application of mind and is not sustainable under any legal princrple Learned State counsel would submit that the order of absorption was not passed by the State Government therefore, It was . A 'g /_#~^“A

¶19

¶20

—J:,_

¶21

irregular and has rightly been cancelled. He would also submit that since the impugned order is not stigmatic, the petitioner's were not entitled for any opportunity of hearing.

¶22

There is no quarrel about the issue that a ll the petitioners were ’ working as Cinema Operator and pursuant to their absorption as H Forester, they have been promoted as Deputy Ranger in^~due course of time. It is not the case of the State Government that the benefit was bestowed upon the petitioners on any representatio n ‘ made bythem.

¶23

‘ A

¶24

Although, the impugned order is not sigmic,tat but i t is settled law that. when an order visits the psoner concerned with civil’ consequenc,es an opportunity of hearing is necssary,e as the b seam is embedded under Article 14 of the Constitution of Idia.n Be that as it may, no order visiting with civil (evil) consequncees be passed^{withoutaffordinganopportunityofhearing.} It i s well settled principle^{oflawthatifanyordervisitswithcivl} i^consequencs, e^the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an oppotunitry of hearing^.to the empioyee(s). (See: Shrawan Kumar Jha and otrshe V. State of Bihar and others’, D.K. Yadav v. J.M..A Inustriesd Ltd. & Othersz, B asudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Othersi Canara Bank & Others. v. Dbassei Das & Othe,rs" Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others5, Mohd. Sartaj &

¶25

1AIR 1991 sc 31o 2(1993) 3 scc 259 3ArR 1998 sc 3261 - . ' 4(2003) 4 scc 557 v 5(2005) 5 scc 337

¶26

¶27

. Q33

¶28

‘Kahlon & Singh anothé( v. State of U.P. & Others6, Inderpreet othe'rs Vs. State of Punjab & others7,^{AshokKhmarSonka’r} v. ‘v. Y Token '& Othersg, State^{ofManipur&Others} Union^ofIndia Jaswant^{SinghPfatapSinghJadeja} v. Rajkot Singh^& Others9, Nehru^{YuvaKendraSangathan} Municipal^{Corporation&another”,} & Othe'rs vj a nd‘ State of Puniab v. Mehbub^Alam Lashkar" ‘Constabie^{AvtarSingh(Dead)ThronghLrs.‘2)."} 'order 'm the impugned ‘ feature > 9. There’ is one more pecUliar J e impugned^{orderreferstonotice} 3‘erved^uporithe inasmuch^asth Forest^.Employees by the. Chhattisgarh State Government ‘as‘ “the Association”) for going einafter^referredto Association^(her one of the ' strike in support of²¹ points^demand, on indefinite demand^{beingforcancellationoftheabsorption-ofthe} petitioners on^the post^ofForester.- 10 .‘ it appears,^{theSecretaryoftheDepartmentwaseitherimpressed} ‘or feariul^{ofthethreatissuedbytheAssociationforgoingonstrike} and^{itisinsuch.stateofmind,theSecretaryhastakenth} e decision g^{tothepetitionersand} it without giving^{anyopportunityofhe'arin} ' does^{notappeartobe} a result^{ofindependentapplicationofmind.} it further^{appears,thedecisionhasbeentakentoappeaseoffice}

¶29

‘of the^{Association.//} bearers

¶30

¶31

6(2006)^2SCC315 7AIR^2006SC2571 moor)^4soc54 ' 9(2007) 5 SCC^65' V 10(2007)^1OSCC71 t 11(2008)^2soc479 12(2008)^7soc405

¶32

Dhanesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhanesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others Vs Chandan Lal Katare

Mina Sahu Vs the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

Smt.shashi Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Prem Shankar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lochan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M.R. Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.