Partly allowed

Punni Ram Maravi v. State and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jan 2017WPS/963/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court quashed an order reversioning the petitioner to a lower post as a non-speaking order passed in violation of natural justice. The petitioner, a reserved candidate, was promoted but reverted due to the acquittal of a senior general category employee. The court held a hearing was required as the result was not a forgone conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 8th July 1994 quashed; petitioner granted seniority and benefits from original promotion date; leave to issue notice not barred.

Punni Ram Maravi Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE ^STATE	WINI$TRATNE ^{TRIBUNAL MJ’.} AT wk; ^~~863%§" JABALPUR.
	04x. No. QBIO; ”/1994
APPLICANT;	Panmi Ram Maravi; aged 34 years, 5/0 Late Shri Ruprah ^Maravi. working a$ Head Clerk in the O£fice of the Deputy Director Veterinary Services. Ambikapur District sargujawhm) ^.
	Vergus
NON~AP13LICANTE:	1. State of MoPc through the $ecretary, Vetezinary Servh:es: Vallabh Bhawana Bhopal.
	20 Directcr. Veterinary Services. M.P.' Bhopale
	Deputy Director: Veterinary Services, Amhikapur Di$trict Sarguja.
ymICA-HON ^UNDE TRIBUNAL'S ACT.	^{R SECIIQN} 19 OF THE AmINISTRATIVE 1985;

¶2

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS ARH BILASPUR

WPS No. 963 of 2005

Punni Ram Maravi

——-- Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondent—State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Dy.A.G.

¶11

' S.B. Honble Shri Justice Manindra Mghan Shrivastava

I Order On Board

11/01/2017

Heard.

The petitioner by this petition has assaiied legality and validity of the order dated 8‘h July, 1994 by which he was reverted from the post of Head Clerk to Upper Division Clerk Grade-ll.

¶16

¶17

i 3” /, 1/ k 2. The petitioner has raised a short submission that the petitioner^was dully considered ardd‘promoted op the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 23.2.1993. Pursuant to the order of p@motion, the petitioner joined on the higher post of 1/2

¶18

Head Clerk. However, after about 1 & years,^the petitioner^was again reverted to the lower post of Upper Division Clerk Grade—ll without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that as the order impugned was passed in

¶19

utter violation of the principles of natural justice, only on that ground, the order

¶20

__ may be quashed because had the petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing. the petitioner could have justified that even if senior person was acquitted of the criminal charges, the promotion of the petitioner made against reserved category post was not liable to be disturbed.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was

¶22

-2-

¶23

promoted^{onavacancywhichhadfallenvacantintheyear1981onaccountof} reversion of one H. J. Chinappa. Chinappa was subjected to criminal proceedings.^{Hewassuspendedandonthatgroundhewasrevertedfromthe} post^{ofHeadClerk.Chinappawasacquitted} in the criminal case^vide judgment dated 22.6.1992. Therefore, upon acquittal, Chinappa was again entitled to given his promotion on the post^{ofHeadClerkfromwhichhewasreverted} in the year 1981 due^to pendency^{ofcriminalcase.LearnedcounselfortheState} contended that present^{isacaseofcategoryofexceptiontothe} general^ruleof audi alteram partem because^{itisacaseofforgoneconclusionand} it would only be an empty formality to give^the petitioner^{noticetoshowcauseagainsthis} reversion. He submits^that in this case, the only conclusion^would have been that on account of^{acquittalofChinappa,hewasentitledtobe} promoted^andas the petitioner was juniorto^him,the petitioner^{wasliabletobereverted.}

¶24

. The promotion order dated 23.2.1993 clearly mentions the petitioner as reserved category candidate. In the petition, the petitioner^has raised a very specific ground— (B) that^the petitioner^was promoted^{againstreserved} quota^of scheduled tribes.

¶25

This factual claim made^inthe petition^{hasnotbeenspecificallydeniedby} the respondentⁱⁿ their return.

¶26

. According to the respondents, Chinappa was reverted way back in the year 1981 on account of institution of a criminal case against him. It is quite improbable that reversion of a general Category candidate in the year 1981 would haveJefLthe vacancy vacant all through from 1981 till 1993. The promotions are made on periodical basis. Further, Chinappa has not been stated to be a candidate’ belonging‘to scheduled tribe. The petitioner's promotion,^{indisputably,wasinthereservedquota.Therefore,even} if Chinappa, the other employee, statedtzto be senior to the petitioner^was entitled to be considered for promotion ,upon his acquittal in June, 1992, it would not have made any impact on promotion^ofthe petitioner^against post^inreserved quota. Therefore, for all these reasons, it cannot be said to be a case of forgone conclusion or an empty formality^{soastocarveoutacaseofexceptiontothe} general rule of the principle of audi a/teram palfem. Therefore, only on the ground^{ofviolationof} principles^{ofnaturaljustice,theimpugnedordercannotbe} sustained in Law. The impugned^{orderisliabletobeand} is, therefore, set aside.

¶27

¶28

It has been stated before the Court that the petitioner was later on promoted as Head Clerk in the year 2001. tn view of this decision, the petitioner would be entitled to seniority on the post of Head Clerk from the date he was originally promoted i.e. 23.2.1993. He shall be granted all benefits of pay, perks and seniority on the post of Head Clerk as if he was promoted on 23.2.1993.

¶29

This order, however, shall not come in the way of respondents in giving show

¶30

cause notice to the petitioner in the matter of his reversion.

¶31

The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶32

Sdl-

¶33

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶34

Praveen

Punni Ram Maravi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punni Ram Maravi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs Smt.Bittu Sharma

Smt.Bittu Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Uma Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

P.C.Jain Vs State and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Pannalal Sen

Sudama Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh