Allowed

Nammu Ram v. Sate of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2019WPS/8513/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization of services. The Court held the rejection bad in law as the petitioner's continuous employment was established by a final Labour Court award, binding the departmental authorities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of rejection set-aside. Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for regularization based on the Labour Court award and pass a fresh order within 90 days.

Nammu Ram Vs Sate of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 8513 of 2018

¶5

Nammu Ram S/o Shri Baran Singh Halba Aged About 46 Years At Present Working At Naikura Parisar, Forest Range Office Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sate Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Divisional Forest Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Balod /Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

04/01/2019

¶18

1 . The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 06.10.2008, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

¶19

2 . The rejection was on the ground that the petitioner has not worked continuously between the period 1989 to 1997 and there was a very short period of employment rendered by the petitioner as a daily wage employee and therefore he would not be entitled for the benefits arising out of the circular dated 05.03.2008.

¶20

3 . Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner had been initially working as a daily wage employee as a Chowkidar with the respondents

¶21

¶22

from 01.01.1992 to 28.02.2000. In February, 2000 the services of the petitioner stood discontinued.

¶23

4 . The petitioner immediately raised a dispute before the Conciliation officer and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon vide case No. 14/I.D.Act/Reference/2000. The Labour Court vide its award dated 09.12.2009 held the discontinuance of the services of the petitioner from February, 2000 to be bad in law and accordingly ordered for reinstatement in service without back wages.

¶24

5 . Perusal of the finding of the Labour Court would also reveal that before the Labour Court there has been a positive evidence led by the petitioner that he has been continuously working with the department since 1992 to February, 2000. There were also certain documents in support of his contentions that he has produced before the Labour Court. The contention of the petitioner was not sufficiently rebutted by the respondents and the Labour Court finally vide its award reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has worked between 1992 to 2000 and the discontinuance was in non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and held the discontinuance to be bad.

¶25

6 . What is also relevant is that the award of the Labour Court dated 09.12.2009 has not been challenged by the respondents and in due course, the same has attained its finality. The award of the Labour Court has also been complied with in as much as the petitioner has been reinstated in service and he continues to work with the department. Thus, the petitioner in accordance with the findings of the Labour Court has to be presumed to be in continuous employment right from 1989 onwards.

¶26

¶27

7 . The said view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of “ Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh” WPS No. 1703/2015 , decided on 16.05.2017. Once when there is a categorical finding of the Labour Court, the authorities in the department cannot, unless the award is set-aside, sit over the finding of the Labour Court and take a different view. Once when there is an order of holding the petitioner to be in continuous employment from 1989 onwards, the authorities have to presume the fact that the petitioner is in continuous employment from 1989 till 1997. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the finding of the authority while rejecting the claim for regularization of the petitioner to be bad in law.

¶28

8 . Given the said facts, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 06.10.2018 is held to be bad in law, arbitrary and deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside.

¶29

9 . It is directed that the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the award of the Labour Court dated 09.12.2009 as also the order of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of “ Tukaram ” (supra) and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶30

10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off.

¶31

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶32

Ved

Nammu Ram v. Sate of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nammu Ram v. Sate of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelamber Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

R.k. Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rashmi Nanda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Narendra Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Puran Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.