Dismissed

Subir Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jul 2022WA/383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A-writ-appellant-challenged-an-interim-relief-refusal-in-service-removal-proceedings-The-bench-agreed-with-the-Single-Judge-that-interim-orders-disposed-of-merits-and-listed-the-case-for-substantive-hearing

What did the court decide?

Case listed before appropriate Bench on 22.08.2022; pleadings to be completed by 12.08.2022.

Subir Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2022

¶5

Subir Sen S/o Shri R.B. Sen, aged about 60 years, R/o 17/361, Sarju Bagicha, Azad Nagar Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh Department of Higher Education MantralayaMahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur - PS Rakhi, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Governing Body (Constituted Under Statute 28 of College Code of C.G. Vishwavidyalaya Adhinium 1973 of D.P. Vipra College) Through - The Secretary to the Governing Body Office of Principal, D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

The Principal D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

The Inquiry Officer D.P. Vipra College Old High Court Road Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government
	Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 to 4	: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶19

20.07.2022

¶20

Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶21

¶22

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2988 of 2020, whereby, the learned Single Judge had declined to grant interim relief.

¶23

Mr. Shrivastava, amongst others, submits that a resolution passed by the governing body for removal of an employee cannot be given effect to unless the same is approved by the Executive Council of the University and according to him, as approval of the Executive Council of the University has not been obtained, it cannot be deemed that the petitioner had been removed from service and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge committed error of law in not granting an interim order to protect the interest of the petitioner.

¶24

On a query of the Court as to whether the petitioner is functioning as of today, it is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the petitioner is under suspension. On a further query of the Court as to whether the petitioner is receiving any subsistence allowance, the reply is in the negative.

¶25

Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, on the basis of the letter dated 17.02.2022 submits that the petitioner had been removed from service with immediate effect. Mr. Sharma further submits that no question arises for grant of subsistence allowance, as the petitioner was removed from service.

¶26

The validity of the order of the removal has to be judged on merits by the learned Single, and therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that any order allowing the petitioner to continue in service would result in passing an order of status quo ante and besides, the same would be in the nature of final relief, cannot be faulted with.

¶27

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, there are debatable issues including maintainability of the writ petition which will require detail consideration. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge while refusing to grant interim relief.

¶29

But, at the same time, having regard to the nature of the controversy, we are of the opinion that an earlier resolution is called for.

¶30

Taking that view, while dismissing the writ appeal, we direct the Registry to list the case before the appropriate Bench having roster on 22.08.2022.

¶31

Pleadings shall be completed, if not already completed, by 12.08.2022.

¶32

We request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶33

Sd/- Sd/-

¶34

(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶35

Chief Justice Judge

¶36

Brijmohan

Subir Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subir Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khadan Majdur Sangh Bhilai Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

Imtiyaj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Durga Sharan Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jayanti Ghanshyam Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh