Dismissed¶45

Tulsiram Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024MCC/257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of MCC seeking modification of withdrawal order dated 31.03.2022 in W.P.(S)No.1826 of 2022 and liberty to file fresh/better constituted writ petition; barred where subsequent W.P.(S)No.377 of 2023 was dismissed on 22.02.2023 as not maintainable (reliance on Sarguja Transport Service, (1987) 1 SCC 5) and that order attained finality by efflux of time; petition dismissed, no costs. Parties: eight CREDA Sub-Engineers v. State of Chhattisgarh (Energy Department) and CREDA. Counsel: K. Tripti Rao for applicants; Arvind Dubey, G.A. for Respondent No.1. NAFR.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S)No.377 of 2023 dismissing the subsequent writ petition as not maintainable has attained finality by efflux of time. ¶44

Tulsiram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCC No.257 of 2023

¶5

Tulsiram Dhruv S/o Punuram Dhruv Aged About 42 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Anil Kumar Binjhwar S/o Shri Dujram Binjhwar Aged About 38 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶7

Ghasiyaram Markam S/o Shri Nawluram Markam Aged About 42 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Bastar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ramsanehi Kashyap S/o Shri Tulsiram Aged About 34 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Girishchand Verma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Verma Aged About 47 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Purnima Gupta W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Aged About 38 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Manish Singh Netam S/o Shri Thakurram Netam Aged About 32 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Bijapur, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Smt. Saroj Thakur D/o Shri Lakhan Lal Thakur Aged About 35 Years Currently Posted As Sub Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

---- Applicants/Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency Through Chairman, Vip Road (Airport Road), Near Energy Education Park, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, MIG 20A/1, Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Respondents

¶20

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

¶21

For Applicants : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶23

Judgment on board (25/01/2024)

¶24

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

1 . By virtue of this petition, the petitioners, who are employees of the Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (In short “the CREDA”), are praying for modification of the order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure A-1) which was passed in W.P. (S)No.1826 of 2022, while praying further for liberty to prefer a better constituted petition with regard to

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

cause of action as mentioned in the said writ petition.

¶29

2 . It is to be noted that the said petition i.e. W.P. (S)No.1826 of 2022 was dismissed as the petitioners have withdrawn the same without obtaining the liberty to file a fresh one. The said order passed on 31.03.2022 is relevant for the purpose, reads as

¶30

under:-

¶31

“At the outset, Shri Ansari seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition.

¶32

Prayer allowed.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

¶34

3 . It is to be seen further that after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, another writ petition being W.P. (S)No.377 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners while seeking following reliefs:-

¶35

“A. To direct Respondent CREDA as well to Respondent No.1/Department of Energy to produce record/documents concerning the present cause before this Hon’ble Court; and

¶36

B. To quash/set aside the order dated 22.03.2012, issued by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3/CREDA, to the extent the same has effected amendment to the CREDA Employees/Officers (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 2004 in relation to the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Sub-Engineer and has provided

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

that only such Sub-Engineers shall be entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers who have a degree in engineering; and

¶39

C. To ward the cost of present litigation to Petitioners; and/or

¶40

D. Any other relief(s) in favour of Petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of case.”

¶41

4 . In the aforesaid writ petition, it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that the reliefs claimed therein are essentially the same to that of the said petition, i.e. W.P.(S)No.1826 of 2022 and accordingly, while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5, has dismissed the same vide its order dated 22.02.2023 (Annexure A-2) by holding it to be not maintainable as the petitioners have failed to obtain the liberty for filing a fresh petition at the time of withdrawal of the said petition i.e.W.P.(S)No.1826 of 2022. Para 12 of the said order reads as under:-

¶42

“In view of the above exposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport (supra), this writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioners having earlier withdrawn Writ Petition (S) No.1826 of 2022 without liberty to file a fresh petition.”

¶43

Page 5 of 5

¶44

1. It is to be noted at this juncture that the aforesaid order has attained its finality by efflux of time and therefore, the instant petition as filed seeking modification of the order dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P.(S)No.1826 of 2022 with a further relief for filing a better constituted petition cannot be held to be maintainable.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid background, the petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

SD/SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶48

Tumane

Tulsiram Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsiram Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhram Karma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Agariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramswarup @ Tengu Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sarthi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shashanka Shekhar Shaw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lachchhan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh