Appeal by former Chowkidar against dismissal of regularization claim. Held that regularization requires continuity of service; appellant remained out of service since 2000 and was paid retrenchment, making appeal devoid of substance.
Writ appeal dismissed; regularization claim rejected as appellant ceased service in 2000.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 161 of 2017
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
21.11.2019
2
services which was challenged in Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur. The Appellant succeeded to get an interim order of stay and as per the averment of the Appellant he thereafter continued to work as Chowkidar. Subsequently on 31.01.2000 the Appellant was again disengaged from his services and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The second order of the disengagement by the Department was also challenged by the Appellant in an Original Application and that order was stayed.
3
the petition filed against order of disengagement was not decided on merits. The effect of above that the Appellant remained disengaged since 31.01.2000. It is also submitted that the retrenchment compensation was also paid to the Appellant.
4
aside, he is not entitled for consideration of his case for regularization. In his earlier writ petition also, there was no direction to consider his representation against termination but it was only for seeking regularization of service. The judgment relied by the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as in the said case the person was in service and similarly situated employees were regularized, whereas in the present case, the petitioner is not in service since after the year 2000.”
Sd/Sd/-
(P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant is entitled to regularization of services when he was not in service and terminated date was before the date of consideration.
Whether the withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to approach department earlier counts as continued service for regularization purpose.
Ballu Singh Thakur
State of Chhattisgarh
P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
