This order dismissed five connected writ petitions filed by former MPSRTC employees now working with CIDC. The High Court held that despite claims for golden handshakes or parity with other districts, these petitioners had no right to be absorbed into Government Departments as per the State Government's 29-6-2010 policy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 1 of 10
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No.2697 of 2015
Karam Singh Sengar, S/o Late Shri Hanuman Singh Sengar, aged about 60 years, working as Assistant Grade3, Office of Collector (Food Branch), Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.2702 of 2015
Anil Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Raj Kishor Sinha, aged about 59 years, working as Assistant Grade-3, Tahsil Office Kunkuri, P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.2699 of 2015
Dilip Kumar Tiwari, S/o Udhav Prasad Tiwari, aged about 57 years, working as Assistant Grade-3, Tahsil Office, Manora, P.S. Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 2 of 10
Versus
Writ Petition (S) No.3021 Of 2015
Babulal Marmat, S/o Nanak Ram, aged about 52 years, working as Assistant Grade-3, Tahsil Baghbahar, P.S. Baghbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.3022 of 2015
Krishna Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Ramadhar Singh, working as Assistant Grade-3, I.T.I. Patthalgaon, P.S. Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 3 of 10
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.3028 of 2015
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioners: Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Anupam Dubey, Deputy G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
CAV Order
06 /11/2015
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 4 of 10
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 5 of 10
that as per circular dated 29-6-2010, services of employees of the CIDC can only be absorbed in Corporations, Authorities and other Mandal Boards, but their services cannot be dissolved in the Government Departments. The petitioners have also pleaded that some of the employees in District Narayanpur have been absorbed in the Collectorate / District Officer, Narayanpur which is the Department of the Government and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to be absorbed on the principle of parity.
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 6 of 10
Government Department. In Narayanpur District, similarly situated employees have been absorbed in Government Department i.e. Collectorate, Narayanapur, the petitioners are also entitled to be absorbed in the Government Department and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption in the Government Department with other employees.
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 7 of 10
^^lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds Kkiu dzekad 571@346@ 2010@1&3] fnukad 31-05-2010 }kjk funsZf'kr fd;k
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 8 of 10
x;k gS fd bl foHkkx ds lela[;d Kkiu fnukad 2004-2010 dh dafMdk 4 ds laca/k eas ;g Li"V fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd fo?kfVr ifjogu fuxe ds dfeZ;ksa dk lafofy;u foHkkx ds v/khuLFk fuxe@ ea.My@ izkf/kdj.kkas eas gh djuk gSA 'kkldh; foHkkxksa esa mudk lafofy;u ugha fd;k tkuk gS ysfdu 'kkldh; foHkkxksa esa bu dfeZ;ks dks izfrfu;qfDr ij ysus dk izFkk tkjh jgsxkA^^
44 as under: -
1 (1996) 7 SCC 134
2 (2008) 12 SCC 675
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 9 of 10
“It is settled law that there can be no estoppel against a statute. If the field was occupied by statutory rules, the employees could get right only under those rules. The High Court was equally bound to consider those rules and to come to the conclusion whether under the statutory rules, the retrenched employees were entitled to absorption either in government department or in any other public sector undertaking. Statement, assurance or even undertaking of any officer or a counsel of the respondent Corporation or of the Government Pleader of the State is irrelevant. The High Court, in our view, ought to have considered the prayer of the Corporation and decided the question if it wanted to dispose of the matter on merits in spite of availability of alternative remedy to the employees.”
Thereafter, in the later part of judgment, Their Lordships further held that court of law cannot issue mandamus to act in violation of statutory provisions by observing as under in paragraph 46 of the report: -
“It is well settled that a court of law can direct the Government or an instrumentality of State by mandamus to act in consonance with law and not in violation of statutory provisions. Unless a court records a finding that act of absorption of all employees of the Corporation either in government department or in any other public sector undertaking is in accordance with law, no writ can be issued. Therefore, even on that ground, the directions of the High Court deserve to be set aside.”
the Government that services of the petitioners being exemployees of the erstwhile MPSRTC can be absorbed only in certain Corporations / Authorities and they cannot be absorbed in Government Departments contrary to the
W.P.(S)No.2697/2015 and other connected matters
Page 10 of 10
policy. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be claimed to be absorbed in Government Departments.
15.Now, coming to issue of the parity claimed on the basis of the order passed by the Collector, Narayanpur in respect of some employees, it is well settled law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept, it would have no application in the matter of enforcement of an order which has its source in illegality. In other words, equality cannot be applied in illegality. ( See Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta) 3 and Punjab SEB v. Gurmail Singh 4.)
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Soma
4 (2008) 7 SCC 245 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 539
3 issues framed by the court
Whether employees of CIDC (ex-MPSRTC) are entitled to absorption in Government Departments contrary to the 29-6-2010 policy circular.
Whether petitioners are entitled to claim negative parity based on an impugned order absorbed an employee in Narayanpur Collectorate.
Whether a court can direct absorption in violation of statutory rules and policy decisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and others v. Kishan Gopal VyasExplained¶90
<u>Union of India and others v. Kishan Gopal Vyas</u>
State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and othersExplained¶91
<u>State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others</u>
Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta)Explained¶105
<u>Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta)</u>
Punjab SEB v. Gurmail SinghExplained¶105
<u>Punjab SEB v. Gurmail Singh</u>
Karam Singh Sengar
Anil Kumar Sinha
Dilip Kumar Tiwari
Babulal Marmat
Krishna Kumar Singh
Ramaniwas Tiwari
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
