Dismissed

Narayan Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2023WA/404/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge’s order dismissing a writ petition seeking regularization of daily wage employees. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while claims for joining were to be accommodated, no back wages or seniority were due for the period of non-employment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellants can join as Skilled Labour but cannot claim back wages or seniority.

Narayan Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 404 of 2023

¶5

Narayan Shukla S/o Shri P.N. Shukla Aged About 54 Years R/o New Sarkanda, Jabadapara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

Ram Narayan Bharadwaj S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bharadwaj Aged About 63 Years R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶7

Dukhuram Baiswada S/o Shri Radheshyam Baiswak Aged About 50 Years R/o Bangali Para Gali No. 3, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avem Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Regional Office, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellants For Respondent/State	: Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3	: Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

04.10.2023

¶20

Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Shayon Kar, learned counsel

¶21

¶22

holding the brief of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶23

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2645 of 2013 ( Narayan Shukla & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellants/petitioners.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were daily wage employees in Madhya Pradesh Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam (for short, ‘Nigam’), on the post of trained Labour right from the year 1988 and thereby performing the duties allotted to the appellants as Store Keeper, Cleark etc. The appellants inter-alias had filed a writ petition, being WP No. 1935 of 2002 before this Court against the order dated 23.04.2022 issued by the Regional Manager, M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam, Raipur, whereby the appellants instead of their being continued in the services either under the Chhattisgarh Government or its Mandi Board, they were being unceremoniously shunted down. She further submits that a list of employees was issued by the Nigam, Bhopal to the Managing Director, C.G. Rajya Krishi Mandi Board, Raipur (C.G.) to facilitate the Hon’ble Court in above said petition filed by the appellants, wherein the name of the appellant No. 1 is mentioned at Sl. No. 9, appellant No. 2 at Sl. No. 11 and appellant No. 3 at Sl. No. 13.

¶25

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that after filing the petition and during its pendency, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Nigam Limited was constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh and various post were created. By virtue of an order dated 27.10.2005, the Secretary, M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam Ltd. relived three

¶26

¶27

employees, namely, Ashok Verma, Ghanshyam Mishra and Ram Kumar Lodhi working on the post of Trained Labour and non trained labour, working prior to year 1988 to join their services in C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam Ltd. whose names were also mentioned in the list issued by the M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam Ltd., Bhopal. But, the appellants who were serving and working in the erstwhile M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam Ltd. since 1988, who had legitimate expectations for their absorption in the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. were not reinstated and regularized by the respondent. She also submits that the respondent-Department vide an order dated 18.06.2009, whereby has appointed some candidates as Daily Wages Employees on the basis of Circular dated 05.03.2008 and by virtue of order dated 09.01.1990 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh for regularization of the daily wages employees working before or from 31.12.1988. Therefore, it is apparent and evident that the Circular dated 05.03.2008 is applicable on the respondent-Department and on the basis of the same, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. has duly appointed employees as daily wages employees. It is also evident that the respondent had vacancy in their department, but arbitrarily and wrongly not appointed the appellants even though this Court vide order dated 25.08.2009 duly directed to consider appellants, if the circular dated 05.03.2008 applicable in the case of the appellants, but no to avail.

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that a contempt case, being Contempt Case (C) No. 274/2011 was filed which was disposed off vide order dated 26.08.2011 with liberty to pray for specific direction from the Court for consideration of their cases. She also submits that without deciding the matter of the appellants, the Managing Director,

¶29

¶30

arbitrarily issued advertisement vide dated 29.02.2012, thereby calling the applications considering the posts of the appellants deemed to be vacant. Being aggrieved by the inactions of the respondents, appellants again filed a writ petition, being WPS No. 1504 of 2012 before this Court, thereby seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their claim for regularization on the basis of the State Government’s circular dated 05.03.2008 for consideration of the regularization of the appellants as one time measure in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi & Others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein this Court vide order dated 04.04.2012 held that “ respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to consider the claim of the appellants for regularization in accordance with law and take a decision on the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order .” Pursuant to the said order, the appellants have made a representation along with the copy of order before the respondent No. 2 mentioning that four months time that has been prescribed by the Court in deciding the application. But, then also no action had been taken by the respondent in compliance of the order of this Court, therefore, the appellants filed a Contempt Case No. 465 of 2012 against the respondent No. 3, wherein passed an order dated 26.04.2012 and thereby dropped contempt proceeding against the respondent.

¶31

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 08.03.2013 has arbitrarily and wrongly rejected the candidature of the appellants on the basis of order dated 19.11.2008 issued by the Upper Secretary, wherein it has been mentioned that Employees of Class-III & VI who has been removed from the services or has self retired/left cannot be regularized. She also submits

¶32

¶33

that the respondent has been unfair with the appellants and discriminated for reinstatement and regularization on the post of trained labour or for any post of Class-III and deliberately decided the candidature of the appellant as per the order dated 19.11.2008, through the actual fact is the appellants have not been removed for any misconduct or under any disciplinary action, but has been removed due to non constitutional of C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nigam. Being aggrieved by the inactions of the respondent, the appellants filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 2645 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.05.2023, disposed off the said writ petition without granting seniority and back wages.

¶34

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition by stating that joining to be given, but appellants cannot ask for back wages is incomplete and cannot be done because in several cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that back wages should be given if the employee was not gainfully engaged in some other business or earning. But, here learned Single Judge has without giving any justification for non-granting the back wages has been ordered.

¶35

8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶36

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

¶37

10. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the appellants No. 1 and 2 be accommodated against the vacancy for the

¶38

¶39

post of Skilled Labour and they be allowed to join to the post of Skilled Labour and the appellants cannot be claimed any back wages or seniority for the period they were not in employment with the Corporation. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity warranting interference with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶40

11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶41

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶42

Brijmohan

Narayan Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Shukla 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashikant Patanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Veer Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jugal Kishore Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsi Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh