Dismissed

Neeraj Vaishya v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2023WA/274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the denial of seniority by employees of Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd., upholding the lower court's view that the appellant failed to question appointment orders in time.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order rejecting the appellant's claim for seniority due to his delay.

Neeraj Vaishya Vs Chhattisgarh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 274 of 2022

¶5

Neeraj Vaishya S/o Late R.R. Vaishya Aged About 45 Years R/o H. No. B- 17, Cspgcl Colony, Village Basantpur, Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. A Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking, A Successor Company Of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Through Its General Manager, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Assistant General Manager (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd., Raipur

¶10

The Superintending Engineer (Hrd) Office Of The Chief Engineer (Gen), Htps, Cspgcl, Korba West, Korba (C.G.)

¶11

Bharat Gadpale Aged About 36 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba West, District Korba

¶12

Laxmi Narayan Suryavanshi Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba East, District Korba

¶13

Prachi Agrawal Sinha Aged About 30 Years Posted At Shed No.-3, O/o C.E. (Hr), Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Cseb, Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

Najariyas Lakra Aged About 32 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶15

Kailash Kumar Dhruv Aged About 33 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W).

¶16

Nalini Pahari Aged About 30 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶17

Mahima Minj Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶18

Kunwar Sai Kujur Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶19

Lochan Singh Aged About 33 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In

¶20

¶21

The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶22

Vikash Lakra Aged About 34 Years Posted As A.E. (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (E), Korba.

¶23

Urmila Toppo Aged About 29 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (E), Korba.

¶24

Pratibha Sonwani Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶25

Amit Kumar Gupta Aged About 33 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶26

Panchram Vaarte Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Executive Engineer (Co-Generation Project), Kawardha

¶27

Sushil Yadu Aged About 32 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶28

Sneha Kshatriye Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (S And P Generation), Raipur

¶29

Lalit Kumar Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶30

Dinesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶31

Shivpal Nath Patel Aged About 31 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba (W), Korba.

¶32

Shailesh Choudhary Aged About 34 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶33

Dharmendra Kumar Banjare Aged About 32 Years Posted As Assistant Engineer (G) In The Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Dspm Tps Korba (E), Korba.

¶34

---- Respondents

¶35

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶36

For Appellant/Writ Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. K.R.Nair, Advocate.

¶37

¶38

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶39

Judgment on Board

¶40

02/ 11/2023

¶41

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition being WPS No. 843/2013, filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure A/11) passed by the respondent No. 2, has been dismissed.

¶42

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner is that the respondent-Company initiated recruitment process for filling up of the posts of Assistant Engineer (Generation) in which the appellant and other private respondents participated and all were interviewed on 08.05.2007 and they were selected and on 12.07.2007, provisional list of selected candidates was uploaded in the official website of the respondent Company in which the appellant’s name was shown at serial No.10, however, on 10.07.2007, appointment order of 19 successful candidates i.e. the private respondents herein on the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) was issued and the appellant by letter dated 12.07.2007 was informed that he has been provisionally shortlisted for the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) and he was asked to submit caste certificate duly verified by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee which he submitted on 18.07.2007, thereafter appointment order was issued in favour of the appellant on 12.09.2007 appointing him on the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) in Mechanical Branch and he was posted in the Office of the Chief Engineer (Generation), Korba West, Korba. Thereafter, on 22.06.2009, another order was issued appointing the appellant/writ petitioner temporarily to officiate until further orders on the post of Assistant Engineer (Generation) showing his date of appointment as 24.09.2008. On 18.05.2012, provisional gradation list as on

¶43

¶44

01.10.2010 was published mentioning the appellant’s name at serial No.215, which the appellant objected stating that he was entitled for seniority from 10.07.2007 but his representation in this regard was rejected by order dated 02.11.2012 against which the appellant preferred a writ petition.

¶45

3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 06.10.2021 which is put to challenge in this appeal.

¶46

4. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action of the respondent authorities herein above is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the fact that there was no mention in the letter dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure A/2) issued by the Additional Secretary CSEB, Raipur about submission of Caste Certificate Verified by the High Power Verification Committee. Further, the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent authority issued letter dated 12.07.2007 to the appellant for submission of Caste Certificate duly verified by the High Power Verification Committee after issuance of first appointment list. The respondent authority issued the first appointment order list on 10.07.2007 without considering the candidature of the appellant, whereas the appellants name was in the first selection list.

¶47

5. Mr. Siddiqui further submits that the appellant immediately submitted Caste Certificate duly verified by the High Power Verification Committee as on 18.07.2007 as instructed by the respondent authorities. However, the respondent authorities issued the second list of appointment as on 12.09.2007, where the name of the appellant is mentioned at Sr. No. 18 of Mechanical Branch instead of including the name of the appellant in the list of 10.07.2007. The respondent-Company ought to have issued the appointment order to the appellant at first instance fixing some period for

¶48

¶49

submission of caste certificate duly verified by the said Committee but in the present case the respondent authorities instead of adopting such practice has chosen not to issue appointment order to the appellant, which is not sustainable in law. The respondent authority themselves were in fault as they have not informed the appellant at first instance to submit duly verified caste certificate and they issued a letter for submission of said document after issuance of first appointment list. Even in the order dated 22.06.2009, the private respondents have been shown junior to the present appellant which is against his fundamental right being arbitrary. On account of acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent authorities, future prospectus of the appellant would be affected seriously.

¶50

6. On the other hand, Mr. K.R.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Company submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and the same has been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant points as raised by the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence, no interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶52

8. The learned Single Judge, at paragraph 7, 8 and 9 has dealt with the issue involved in this appeal elaborately. At paragraph 9, it has been rightly observed that the appellant/writ petitioner did not question the order dated 22.06.2009 despite the said order clearly indicating that the private respondents were earlier confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Generation) prior to the appellant and he continued on the same date of appointment and allowed the said order to continue further and all of a sudden, when the provisional gradation list as on 01.10.2010 was published, then only he decided to make representation claiming that he was entitled for

¶53

¶54

seniority with the private respondents which was not granted.

¶55

9. It is a case where the appellant/writ petitioner himself was indolent, lethargic and not vigilant. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner ought to have been vigilant and should have questioned the appointment right in time when he was appointed on 12.09.2007 and thereafter, he could have sought modification claiming appointment with the private respondents w.e.f 10.07.2007 which he did not question even after being confirmed on 22.06.2009 wherein his date of appointment was shown as 24.09.2008. The appellant/writ petitioner even did not question the order dated 22.06.2009 and continued to work on the same post with the date of appointment as 12.09.2007 and on the same seniority and only when the provisional gradation list was published on 18.05.2012, the appellant thought of questioning his seniority by making representation on 02.06.2012 and later submitted reminders which were rejected.

¶56

10. The learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganga Vishan Gujrati and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others {(2019) 16 SCC 28} and which has further been followed in the State of Bihar & Others v. Arbind Jee {2021 SCC OnLine 821}. We also concur with the findings arrived and reasoning given at by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 12. The appellant/writ petitioner has failed to point out any flaw or legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, no interference is warranted.

¶57

11. As a result, this appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶58

Sd/- Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶59

Amit

Neeraj Vaishya v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Vaishya v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Kumar Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Parwati Manikpuri and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Goyal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Mukherjee Vs the Registrar General

Akriti Agrawal Vs the High Court of Chhattisgarh