Disposed

Lakhan Lal Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2023WPS/797/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service matter, the High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a petition by municipal time keepers denied promotion. The court directed the State Government to decide the dispute within six months following a resolution to relax qualification requirements.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to decide the dispute within six months from receiving the order.

Lakhan Lal Thakur Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 797 of 2019

¶5

1. Lakhan Lal Thakur S/o Late Shri Roop Singh Thakur Aged About 62 Years Presently Posted And Working As Time Keeper Municipal Corporation Raipur, R/o Vikash Vihar Mahadevghat Road, Madhav Rao Sapre Ward Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Prakash Rawtani S/o Late Shri Deep Chand Rawtani Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted And Working As Time Keeper Municipal Corporation Raipur, R/o New Sales Tax Colony, H. No. D/6-A Khamardih, Shankarnagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

3. Chhaya Dhar Bharti S/o Saina Bharti Aged About 59 Years Presently And Working As Time Keeper Municipal Corporation Raipur, R/o Padma Shri, Dr. Bharti Bandhu Vir Bahadur Nagar, Budhatalab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

4. Yogeshwar Rao Muskay S/o G. K. Muskay Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted And Working As Time Keeper Municipal Corporation Raipur, R/o Budhapara, Back Side Of Primary Girls School, Swami Vivekanand Ward 57, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,District:Raipu,Chhattisgarh

¶9

5. Chhannulal Sahu S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted And Working As Time Keeper Municipal Corporation Raipur, R/o Kapa Lodhi Para, Raipur, Near Grand Honda Show Room Avanti Bai Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Nay Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3. Director Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶17

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

04.1 2.2023

¶20

1 . Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners were entitled to get promoted to the post of Sub Engineer after completion of ten years of service on the post of Time Keeper but their cases were not taken into consideration by the department and later on, they got retired from services after attaining the age of superannuation. He would further argue that a circular was issued by respondent No. 1 on 05.12.2018, according to which Time Keepers who have completed 10 years of service and acquired additional educational qualification of Diploma in Tracer would be entitled to promotion to the post of Sub Engineer which is erroneous. He would also submit that petitioners had completed more than 30 years of service in the department on the post of Time Keeper but their cases were not taken into consideration for promotion on the post of Sub Engineer.

¶21

2 . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the minimum eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer from the post of Time Keeper are Higher Secondary and Diploma in Tracer but the petitioners did not have requisite qualifications, therefore, their cases were not considered.

¶22

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that a communication was sent to the State Government to relax the conditions prescribed in the letter dated 05.12.2018 i.e. Annexure P-1 wherein it is held that the Diploma in Tracer would be a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer. He would further submit that the matter is still pending before the State Government and no decision has been taken.

¶23

Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 would submit

¶24

¶25

that a circular dated 05.12.2018 was issued in pursuance of the rules applicable in the case of the petitioners. He would further submit that the matter is still pending consideration before the State Government as to whether such rules can be relaxed or not. A resolution in this regard was passed by Mayor-In-Council on 23.01.2019 and the matter was referred to relax such onerous conditions. He would further argue that most of the petitioners have already retired from services.

¶26

3 . Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

4 . From a perusal of documents, it appears that petitioners approached the authorities for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer from the post of Time Keeper and their cases were not taken into consideration by the department. A circular was issued on 05.12.2018 which provides that for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer, diploma in tracer is mandatory and immediately thereafter, the petition was filed.

¶28

5 . Taking into consideration the fact that a resolution was passed by the Mayor-In Council, Raipur and the matter was thereafter referred to the State Government but till date, no decision has been taken, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide the dispute involved in the present case preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Ajinkya

Lakhan Lal Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Lal Thakur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Champa Bai Vs Bholaram

Smt. Khushboo Sahu Vs Pratik Kumar Sahu

Smt. Jamuni Bai dead Through Lrs Prabhat Kumar Jaiswal Vs Nawabrao dead Through Lrs Dr. Abdul Habib

(Died), Chamely Bai Through LRs. Vs Smt. Chandrika Bai

Gopiram Sahu Vs Bhagirathi Sahu

Krishna Vs Prabhu Dayal and Anr.