Dismissed

Surendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Dec 2023WA/516/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal seeking seniority and promotional benefits based on past service rendered in the Border Roads Organization before joining the State Public Works Department. The bench held that the Single Judge correctly found the appointment was by direct recruitment with no provisions forCentral Government service benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Surendra Kumar Rawat Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No.516 of 2023

¶5

Surendra Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Mehatter Ram Rawat, aged about at present 49 years, Sub-Engineer, Public Works Department, posted at present at Bemetara, Distt-Bemetara (CG) R/o Gram and Post – Sondh, Tehsil Berla, District Durg (CG)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan (Now Mahanadi Bhawan), Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.-Raipur (CG)

¶9

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶10

Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Durg Mandal, Raipur (CG)

¶11

Union of India, Through the Commander, HQ 752 BRTF (GREF), C/o 99 APO, Pin 930 752 (APS CIRCLE)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr.Vikram Sharma, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

14.12.2023

¶17

Heard Mr.Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.4 on I.A.No.01/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 1729 days in preferring the appeal.

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A.No.01 of 2023),

¶19

¶20

same is allowed. Delay of 1729 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶21

Heard the writ appeal on admission.

¶22

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1253 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶23

The facts of the case are that the appellant was originally appointed with the Border Roads Organization under the Government of India on 25.02.2000. He continues to work on the said post till the year 2008. In the year 2007, in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for filling up of the post of Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department, the appellant applied for the post of Sub-Engineer and got selected by way of an appointment order dated 20.05.2008. The appellant obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Government of India for relieving him to join the service of the State Government. The officers under the Border Roads Organization had issued NOC for being relieved, then accepting the resignation of the appellant as a technical resignation and in one of the correspondences i.e. in the Last Pay Certificate showing him to have been selected as Sub-Engineer on permanent transfer/absorption basis. Based on these correspondences of the officers of the Border Road Organization, the appellant had filed the writ petition seeking the benefit of seniority on the basis of his past service and also for the consequential benefit on the promotional front in the present department.

¶24

¶25

Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 17.01.2019 has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶26

Mr.Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the person who is working on transfer or deputation or in direct recruitment in another department and if he is absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption in his parent department, then his regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account while fixing his seniority in the present department. He further submits that the appellant has given his 8-9 years to the Government of India, but the State of Chhattisgarh is not giving the benefit of service rendered by the appellant and that is violation of Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules. The appellant had offered his resignation on 26.05.2008 mentioning that he has to join in the State of Chhattisgarh as Sub-Engineer in Public Works Department and respondent No.4 acceded on it on 16.06.2008. As such, there is violation of Article 309 of the Constitution of India in not granting the benefit of past service rendered by the appellant. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr.Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State and Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.4 support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶28

¶29

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that all these instructions which have been referred to by the petitioner deals with the employees working under the Government of India and as such, those circulars and office memorandums would not come to the aid of the petitioner for the purpose of granting the relief which he has sought of. Learned Single Judge further held that the order Annexure P-1 dated 20.05.2008 clearly reflects that the appointment of the petitioner was made by way of direct recruitment. It was never required or envisaged in the advertisement that the people who were working with the Central Government Organization would be given any added advantage or protection in the event of there participating and being selected in the selection process.

¶30

10.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order, pleadings made in writ appeal, also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the documents appended with writ appeal, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or infirmity in dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner warranting interference by this Court.

¶31

11.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶32

Sd/- Sd/-

¶33

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶34

Bablu

Surendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Rawat 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

M/s Radhe Shyam Agrawal Partner Sanjay Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Adhik Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Krishnakant Ramavatar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dalvir Kaur Vs Union of India

Santosh Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umakant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh