Dismissed

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan v. Mahesh Kumbhkar

Chhattisgarh HC16 Oct 2023WA/116/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of a writ appeal filed by the Nagar Panchayat challenging a single-judge order reinstating an employee. The Court noted the Appellant lacked locus standi as the State Government was the appointing authority and did not appeal. Despite the locus issue, the Court dismissed the appeal but directed the State Government to comply with the previ

What did the court decide?

The appointment appeal is disposed of; the State Government is directed to comply with the impugned order of reinstatement within 2 months.

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan Vs Mahesh Kumbhkar — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 116 of 2020

¶5

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan Through- Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, DistrictRanjnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Mahesh Kumbhkar Son Of Shri Kulpatram, Occupation Services, Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ii, Resident Of Rikrapara, Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Environment And Urban Administration Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Umakant Mahobiya Son Of Palbhafra Mahobiya, Resident Of Mahobiyapara, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Ku. Kiran Mal Aged About 31 Years Resident Of- Near Forest, Naka, Dau Chouraha, Khairagarh, DistrictRajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

16.10.2023

¶20

Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy G.A. appearing for the State/respondent No.2, and Mr. Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶21

1 . By way of this appeal filed under Section 2 sub-section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006), appellant has sought for the following relief:-

¶22

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure-A/1), in the interest of justice.

¶23

2 . Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) on 24.08.1998. Pursuant to the appointment, the petitioner joined the services, but the select list was not approved by the State Government and at the same time an order was passed on 29.07.2002 directing the Nagar Panchayat to cancel the appointment. The Nagar Panchayat thereafter issued an order Annexure-P/5 dated 02.08.2002 cancelling the appointment. Petitioner, as petitioner No.7, and other

¶24

¶25

affected candidates preferred Writ Petition No.1589 of 2002 before this Court which came to be allowed on 02.01.2006 quashing both the orders passed by the State Government and the Nagar Panchayat. One Umakant Mahobiya, respondent No.3 herein preferred MCC No.75 of 2006 seeking review of the order passed in WP No.1589 of 2002. The review was allowed on 20.04.2007 modifying the previous order to the extent that the State Government's order dated 29.07.2002 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to the State Government for deciding the case afresh by issuing proper notice to all the concerned interested parties, but despite the same, the order dated 07.02.2009 was passed by the respondent authorities cancelling petitioner’s appointment on the aforesaid post, against which the WPS No.3343/2009 was preferred before the learned Single Bench, which was allowed vide order dated 21.11.2019 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with entire arrears of his service, against which the writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶26

3 . The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has pointed out the fact from the return filed by the respondent No.2 in the writ petition that the appellant itself accepted the fact that it is a former party before the writ Court and the

¶27

¶28

appellant itself has stated the same in the return, as such the appellant Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan has no locus to file the present appeal before this Court, hence the present appeal be dismissed on this ground alone. It further transpires from the record that though the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shikha Karmi Grade-III, but select list was not approved by the State Government and at the same time, an order dated 29.07.2002 directing Nagar Pancahayat to cancel petitioner's appointment was passed. In pursuance of the same, an order dated 02.08.2002 was passed by the Nagar Panchayat cancelling petitioner’s appointment, against which writ petition bearing WP No.1589/2002, which was allowed and both the orders were quashed. Being aggrieved by the same, one Umakant Mahobia preferred MCC No.75/2006 seeking review of the order dated 02.01.2006 passed in WP No.1589/2002. The review was allowed and order dated 02.01.2006 was modified and the matter was remitted back to the State Government to decide the case afresh. Thereafter order dated 07.02.2009 was passed by the State Government cancelling petitioner’s appointment, against which writ petition bearing WPS No.3343/2009 was preferred before the learned Single Judge, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2019 and the respondent

¶29

¶30

authorities were directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with entire arrears of salary, against which the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶31

4 . In view of above, it transpires that initially the respondent No.1 was appointed by the appellant i.e. Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, but subsequently after merger of the same into the State Government, the appointing authority of the respondent No.1 is the State Government, but the appeal has been preferred by the Nagar Panchayat, which has no locus to file appeal and the necessary and interested party is the State Government, who was to file appeal if aggrieved by the impugned, but no appeal has been filed by the State, as has been pointed out by Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Dy. Government Advocate. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

5 . The State Government is directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Bench preferably within a period of 2 months from today.

¶33

Sd/Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶34

Deepti Jha

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan v. Mahesh Kumbhkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan v. Mahesh Kumbhkar

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

Prem Prakash Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kiran Devi Agrawal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S E. Tech Projects Private Limited. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Tirajo Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

D.R. Dayal (Dead) through Legal Hairs Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh