Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC16 Oct 2023WA/95/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order dismissing a petition for seniority and promotion. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reinstatement due to procedural irregularities in termination does not automatically grant promotion. The appellant had been found unfit for earlier promotions and failed to raise the bar to the Supreme Court within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; appellant not entitled to seniority or backdated promotion.

D.R. Dayal (Dead) through Legal Hairs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 95 of 2022

¶4

D.R. Dayal (Dead) Through Legal Hairs;

¶5

1A. Smt. Vijaya Dayal W/o Late D.R. Dayal Aged About 61 Years 1B. Digvijay Dayal S/o Late D.R. Dayal Aged About 40 Years 1C. Divyarani Dayal D/o Late D.R. Dayal Aged About 37 Years 1D. Dushyant Dayal S/o Late D.R. Dayal Aged About 33 Years All are R/o House No. R-8/76 Ramavally Parsada Bodri High Court Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. High Court of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Law And Legislature D.K.S. Bhawan (Now Mahanadi Bhawan) Raipur (Now New Raipur) Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners : Shri NK Malviya, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2 : Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, J

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 16.10.2023.

¶16

1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking

¶17

¶18

following prayer:

¶19

“It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.01.2020.”

¶20

2. The original petitioner (since deceased), now represented by his legal heirs, have preferred this writ appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.6970 of 2007.

¶21

3. The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge Junior Division (Class II) on 22-10-1985. He completed his probation on 22-51988. He was served with charge sheet on 3-3-1990. On completion of departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved against him. Thereafter, the High Court imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect pursuant to the resolution dated 27/28-4-1991 of the Full Court. On account of certain adverse remarks in his ACRS for the period 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989- 90, 1991-92 and 1992-93 as also certain irregularities found by the inspecting Judge of the High Court the petitioner's case for promotion as Civil Judge Senior Division (Class 1) was deferred. In the Full Court meeting held on 30-4-1993 and on other occasion in the year 1993 the petitioner was not found fit for confirmation and his services were terminated after giving one month's salary in lieu of

¶22

¶23

notice. The State Government issued the consequential order on 8-11-1993. Writ petition and LPA preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed, however, SLP preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Supreme Court under the judgment dated 28.08.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No.9569 of 1995 (Dayaram Dayal Vs. State of MP & Another) and the petitioner was reinstated in service along with arrears of emoluments and all other consequential benefits.

¶24

4. The petitioners claimed for seniority and promotion before the Single Bench on the ground that his immediate juniors were promoted to the post of Civil Judge Senior Division in October, 1993 and on the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1996 and thereafter to the post of Additional District Judge in 1998 whereas, the petitioner remained as Civil Judge Senior Division.

¶25

5. Learned Single Judge after hearing all the parties dismissed the petition on the ground of delay as also lacking on merits. Hence this writ appeal.

¶26

6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned.

¶27

7. The appellant’s claim that once the Supreme Court has reinstated him in service with all consequential benefits, he be placed at per with his immediate juniors who were promoted ahead of the appellant, has no force as his case for promotion was duly considered in Full Court meeting between 1^st May to 3^rd

¶28

¶29

May, 1992 and again in the meeting held on 30.04.1993 to 02.05.1993 in which he was not found fit for promotion. Thus, before termination, his case for promotion was duly considered and rejected. Therefore, on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court he cannot claim the benefit of promotion for which he was not found suitable. This order was passed much before the appellant has gone to Supreme Court. It is an independent cause of action and not connected with the judgment of the Supreme Court. It was not a case of the appellant before the Supreme Court that earlier he was wrongly denied promotion. He was denied promotion on account of certain irregularities and adverse ACRs.

¶30

8. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties have rightly held that merely because the appellant was reinstated in service by the Supreme Court because the order of discharge from service without holding any departmental enquiry was not found permissible in law, he cannot claim the benefit of seniority and promotion as he was earlier considered and found unfit for promotion on account of certain irregularities and adverse ACRs. Even otherwise, pursuant to the order dated 28.08.1997 passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s case for promotion was duly considered and he was granted promotion to the post of Civil Judge Senior Scale vide order dated 28.08.1998. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the order of Supreme Court

¶31

¶32

has not been complied with, is totally incorrect. Merely because the appellant was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 08.11.1993, it does not give any right to the appellant to claim his promotion also from the back date when his case for promotion was already considered and rejected earlier.

¶33

9. It is alleged that the appellant was deprived from promotion in the year, 1993, but he did not raise this ground before the Supreme Court that he has been illegally deprived from promotion. First time he raised this ground in the year, 2007 i.e. after about 15 years before the learned Single Judge claiming his seniority and promotion from 1992 or 1993 i.e. from the date his immediate juniors were granted promotion. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches.

¶34

10. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶35

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

¶36

inder

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.R. Dayal (Dead) through Legal Hairs v. High Court 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

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

Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan Vs Mahesh Kumbhkar

M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh