Dismissed

Harinarayan Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2023WPS/778/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition advocating for regularization on the post of Sub Engineer from 1.10.2008, the High Court directed the State to decide the petitioner's claim within four months after receiving a representation, citing lack of details regarding his unfit status.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's claim for regularization from 1.10.2008 within four months upon receipt of a representation filed by the petitioner within four weeks.

Harinarayan Sharma Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.778 of 2017

¶4

Harinarayan Sharma, S/o Shri Muni Mahesh Mishra, aged about 48 years, Working as Sub Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division No.2, Katghora, Division Korba, Distt. Korba (CG)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)

¶8

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

¶9

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Area, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶12

: Mr. S.P.Kale, Advocate. : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board

¶14

12/09/2023

¶15

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following reliefs:

¶16

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to passed order on the letter dated 07.01.2009 issued by respondent no.3.

¶17

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization to the post of Sub Engineer w.e.f. 1.10.2008.

¶18

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the

¶20

¶21

petitioner is covered by the order dated 13.5.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.178/2016 in the matter of State of CG and another Vs. Suraj Prasad Soni and others as also by the order dated 8.8.2019 passed by this Court in WPS No.7398/2007 in the matter of Munnalal Bobje Vs. State of CG and others. Therefore, the present petition may also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

¶22

Learned State counsel opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner is not regularized on the post of Sub Engineer from 1.10.2008, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of regularization from the said date. The instant petition has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the orders cited by counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The Division Bench of this Court in para 10 of its order dated 13.5.2019 passed in WA No. 178/2016, State of CG and another Vs. Suraj Prasad Soni and others, observed as under:

¶25

“10. With regard to the appeal filed by the respondents/writ petitioners for retrospective regularization, as mentioned already, this Court fully agrees with the view taken by learned Single Judge. We are of the view that the eligible extent of benefit which can be availed by the writ petitioner with regard to regularization has already been extended. No interference is warranted with respect to the said aspect as well. However, we make it clear that

¶26

¶27

regularization shall be with effect from the date on which their juniors has been given the benefit of regularization.”

¶28

The Single Bench of this Court in paras 4 & 5 of its order dated 8.8.2019 passed in WPS No.7398/2007 Munnalal Bobje Vs. State of CG and others, observed as under:

¶29

“4. In the return filed by the State/respondents it is mentioned that the petitioner was not regularised along with other persons on 5-11.1996 because he was found unfit for regularisation. State has not provided details as to the reason for the petitioner’s being unfit for regularisation nor any document has been filed with the return showing judicious consideration of the case of the petitioner as on 5-11-1996 along with other similarly placed persons.

¶30

In absence of private respondents as also in absence of full facts and documents, instead of keeping this petition pending, as it is already 12 years after filing of the writ petition, ends of justice would be served if the respondents objectively decide the petitioner’s claim for regularisation from 5-11-1996. The petitioner shall move a representation in this regard within a period of four weeks from today along with copy of this order as well as copy of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Prasad Soni (supra). On petitioner’s moving such representation the competent authority shall notice the persons who were regularised on 5-11-1996 and shall hear them also while deciding the petitioner’s representation. The competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four months from the date of its submission.”

¶31

In the present case also, the State/respondents have not

¶32

¶33

provided the details as to the reasons for denying the petitioner regularization on the post of Sub Engineer from the date i.e. 1.10.2008 when his juniors were promoted. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders passed by this Court in WA No.178/2016 and WPS No.7398/2007 (supra), in absence of private respondents as also in absence of full facts and documents, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to objectively decide the petitioner’s claim for regularization from 1.10.2008, the date when his juniors were promoted. The petitioner is directed to move a representation in this regard within a period of four weeks from today along with copy of this order as well as copy of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Prasad Soni (supra). On such representation being moved by the petitioner, the competent authority shall issue notice to the persons who were regularized on 1.10.2008 and hear them also while deciding the petitioner’s representation. The competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law on its own merits within a period of four months from the date of its submission.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶36

Khan

Harinarayan Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinarayan Sharma 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

Radheshyam Soni Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Savita Meshram Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Smt. Durga Bai Deshmukh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prashenjit Mitra Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited And Ors.

Smt. Subhashani Gupta Vs Ramesh Gupta

Smt. Sarita Pal Vs Murlidhar Pal