Dismissed

Abhishek Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2022WA/547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order upholding the Single Judge's decision to dispose of a writ petition concerning salary and termination. The original court held disputed attendance facts could not be adjudicated under Article 226 and directed the appellant to seek other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of with no interference in the impugned order. Liberty to seek alternate remedies reserved.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 547 of 2022

¶5

Abhishek Singh S/o Shri Vimal Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years ExTuberculosis Health Visitor, R/o Ram Ashrey Bhawan, Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chairman /Collector District Health Society, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Bilaspur, Nutan Chowk Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

¶18

02.12.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. S. P. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

¶20

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 10.08.2022

¶21

¶22

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1794 of 2021.

¶23

The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :

¶24

“1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming for following reliefs:-

¶25

“10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call record from the respondent office in related to petitioner.

¶26

10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to pay illegal deducted salary of 3 days in January, 2020, 4 days in February, 2020 and salary from April, 2020 to receiving of dated 25 October, 2020 (received order of termination) with 18% interest.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petition which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

10.4 That the cost of the petition be granted.”

¶29

In pursuance of this Court's order dated 01.08.2022, Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Bilaspur is appeared before this Court and placed on record the daily attendance register, in which, the petitioner was shown to be

¶30

¶31

remain absent for the month from April, 2020 to October, 2020. The petitioner is also present in person before this Court and objected the authenticity and correctness of the attendance register produced by the CMHO. This disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court while hearing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Let the petitioner may take recourse available to him under the law to rebut the authenticity and correctness of the attendance register produced by the CMHO and to demonstrate that he reported for duty.

¶33

With these observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.”

¶34

Before us also, Mr. Tiwari has produced the Register after having shown to Mr. Kale.

¶35

Mr. Kale submits that the appellant was not required to attend the office and mark his attendance as, he being a Tuberculosis Health Officer, was required to do field work only.

¶36

Placing reliance on Annexure P/17, he submits that the same would demonstrate that the appellant had worked upto May, 2020. It is contended by him that subsequently also the appellant had attended duty upto 07.11.2020, on which date he was terminated arbitrarily and illegally.

¶37

¶38

However, for the period from June, 2020 to 07.11.2020 as the ID of the appellant was blocked, he could not prepare documents like Annexure P/17. Mr. Kale submits that the appellant has been paid salary only upto March, 2020 and not beyond that.

¶39

Annexure P/17 are documents signed by the appellant and there is no endorsement of any other authority.

¶40

On a specific query of the Court as to whether the termination order dated 07.11.2020 was assailed by the appellant in any forum, it is submitted by Mr. Kale that the same has not been challegned.

¶41

Generally, whether a person has attended office or not is reflected by the presence marked by the employee in the attendance register or through bio-metric device.

¶42

The attendance register does not bear the signature of the appellant.

¶43

We do not wish to comment on the submission of Mr. Kale that the appellant was not required to mark his attendance in attendance register as he was required to do field work.

¶44

As disputed facts had been raised, the same being not possible to be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge left the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to him in law.

¶45

In a matter of present nature, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge. We also

¶46

¶47

reserve liberty to the appellant as observed by the learned Single Judge to seek remedy in accordance with law.

¶48

The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge

¶50

Anu

Abhishek Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Shamsher Singh Vs General Manager

Narbadia Bai Vs Manharan Srivas

Harishankar Joshi Vs Shri M.n. Rajulkar

Dr. Ruchir Tyagi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

U.N. Iyengar Vs Union of India

Dr. Aman Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh