Chief Executive Officer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ahilya Paikra D/o Surendra Kumar Paikar, aged about 35 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat)at Goverment Rajiv Gandhi Balika Ashram, Sitapur, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

Anurag Barai S/o Nirangan Barai, aged about 34 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Dharampur, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶16

Monika Gupta D/o Indra Prasad Gupta aged about 37 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat)at Government Primary School Rajauti, Janpad Panchayat , Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶17

Kedar Gupta S/o R.K.Gupta aged about 35 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Gersa, Janpad Panchayat Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶18

Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Goverdhan Gupta aged about 35 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Parsa, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶19

Smt. Nemhanti Minj D/o A.K.Minj Aged About 55 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat0 At Governemnt Primary School, Pandaripani, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶20

Neetu Bakhala D/o J.Bakhala aged about 40 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Governemnt Primary School, Junapara Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶21

2

¶22

Dinesh Kerketta S/o Kendra Kerketta aged about 37 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Governemnt Primary School, Bagdoli,janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)

¶23

---- Respondents

¶24

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶25

For Appellant : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 5/ State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, G.A. For Respondent No.7 to 14 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput , Judge

¶27

Judgment on Board

¶28

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶29

12.06.2024

¶30

Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 5 as well as Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 14.

¶31

This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.1436 of 2021 (Ahilya Paikra and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / private respondent Nos. 7 to 14 herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Director Panchayat and directing the respondents therein / appellant to comply with the orders/directions issued by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur in Revision No. 162/B-121/ 2018-19 and further

¶32

3

¶33

giving the liberty to the the respondents to pursue their appeal pending before the State Government.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petitioners / respondent Nos. 7 to 14 and other similarly situated persons have filed several writ petitions which were registered as WPS No. 8162 of 2018 and batch, in which relief sought for by each of the petitioners in that batch of writ petitions was for a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for regularization on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) w.e.f. 28.11.2009 i.e. immediately on their completing 2 years of service from the initial date of appointment. The said batch of writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2018, observing as follows :

¶35

“3. Perusal of the record would show that the case of each of the petitioners had been scrutinized at the Janpad level and there is a resolution passed by the Janpad in favour of the petitioners vide resolution dated14.08.2017. Later on, the respondent no.3 also i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur has also recommended the case ofthe petitioners for regularization to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja i.e. the respondent No.2.

¶36

Though, a couple of recommendations have been made to the respondent No.2, but no decision has been taken by the authorities concerned, till date. The respondents, in turn, have filed a detail replyand along with the reply, there is this document Annexure R/3.8 dated08.08.2018, which reflects that the Collector, who was appraised of the grievance of the petitioners has passed an order for due verification of the claim of the petitioners for

¶37

4

¶38

regularization. That for the said purpose,the Collector has also constituted a committee, as is reflected from the document Annexure R/3.8.

¶39

During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 also fairly submits that subject to the verification of the credentials of the petitioners, appropriate order would be passed so far as regularization is concerned, at the earliest.

¶40

Given the aforesaid submissions and contentions and also taking note of the document Annexure R/3.8, the correspondence made by the Collector, Surguja, this Court is of the opinion that it appears that the case of the petitioners are in the process of consideration and subject to verification, their claim would be decided in accordance with the rules and regulations.

¶41

In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petitions pending any further. Accordingly, these writ petitions stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to take a decision at the earliest, of course subject to verification of the credentials of the petitioners as has been directed by the Collector, vide his order dated 08.08.2018.

¶42

It is expected that the authorities would conclude the verification part also at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶43

With the aforesaid observations, all these writ petitions stand disposed off.”

¶44

The petitioners made representation before the CEO, Janpad Panchayat and in turn, he took a decision to regularize services of

¶45

5

¶46

the petitioners subject to verification of credentials of the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Janpad Panchayat raising their grievances but no action was taken and even the Committee constituted by the Collector did not give any heed, therefore, the petitioners approached the Commissioner, who passed an order on 18.5.2020. The Commissioner while passing the order dated 18.5.2020, examined and verified the credentials of all the petitioners and this fact is evident from the order passed by the Commissioner itself. Thereafter, when the Janpad Panchayat sought guidance from Director Panchayat, the Director Panchayat restrained the authorities from taking any decision on issue of regularization and absorption of the petitioners vide order dated 27.01.2021 and subsequently, the CEO District Panchayat cancelled the order of regularization passed by the Janpad Panchayat in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 08.02.2021.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Director Panchayat and order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the CEO District Panchayat, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have filed several writ petitions, which were registered as WP(S) No. 1436 of 2021 and batch of petitions with the following reliefs :

¶48

“10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order Dated 27.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Director, Directorate of Panchyat.

¶49

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash

¶50

6

¶51

the order Dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P/2) issued by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Sarguja Ambikapur.

¶52

10.3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority not to deduct/recovery any benefit/amount to the petitioners on the basis of 27.01.2021 (Annexure P/1), 08.02.2021 (Annexure P/2).

¶53

10.4. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of the petitioners for absorption in the school education department on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) on the basis of order Dated 18.05.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division Ambikapur.

¶54

10.5. The Hon’ble Court may kindly grant any other writ / writs, order / orders, relief / reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶55

The said batch of writ petitions were disposed off vide order dated 19.04.2023 taking the WP(S) No. 1250 of 2021 as lead case. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows :

¶56

“10. Coming to the facts of the case in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Director Panchayat had no authority to modify or set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.

¶57

Consequently, the order passed by the Director Panchayat (Annexure-P/1) dated 27.1.2021 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to comply with the orders/ directions issued by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur in Revision No. 162/B-121/ 2018-19. The respondents are also at liberty to pursue their appeal

¶58

7

¶59

pending before the State Government.

¶60

With the aforesaid observation(s), these petitions are disposed of.”

¶61

Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred a review petition registered as REVP No. 164 of 2023 seeking review of the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.1436 of 2021, which was subsequently, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to prefer writ appeal against the said impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

¶62

Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the challenge to the impugned order is substantially made on the two grounds which are firstly, during the hearing of subject writ petition, the respondents have made a misconceived and misinterpreted submission concerning the direction passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide common order dated 11.12.2018 passed in the earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 8017 of 2018 and other connected matters, wherein the respondents have wrongly submitted that as such there was no direction by the Hon'ble Single Judge to constitute a committee for scrutiny and thus, there was no need for Collector to constitute a committee suo moto for scrutiny. Whereas, the real fact which needs to be apprise before this Hon'ble Court is that an order for constitution of committee for verification of the case of litigants/teachers were already passed by the Collector as early as on 08.08.2018 and on the basis of which a 5 members committee was already constituted and the same was also placed before the

¶63

8

¶64

Hon'ble Single Judge by appellant herein in the first round of litigation i.e., in WPS No. 8017 of 2018 and other connected petitions and accordingly, vide para no.7 of order dated 11.12.2018 in WPS No.8017 of 2018 and other connected matter, the Hon'ble Single Judge specifically directed the appellant to make decision concerning the claims of litigants/teachers "which shall be subjected to verification of the credentials of the litigants as has been directed by the Collector, vide his order dated 08.08.2018". The second ground is that the Hon'ble Single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.04.2023 has set-aside the letter dated 27.01.2021 vide which the Directorate of Panchayat has directed to challenge an impugned order of Commissioner to comply the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 11.12.2018 in earlier litigation bearing WPS No.8017 of 2018, nevertheless, the Hon'ble Single Judge vide order dated 19.04.2023 also upheld the submission of appellant that they have challenged the impugned order of Commissioner before the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development and which is pending and moreover, also granted liberty to appellant to pursue the case before Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, while also directing the appellant to comply with the order passed by learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 18.05.2020.

¶65

On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent Nos. 7 to 14 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order

¶66

9

¶67

dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Secretary, Department of Panchyat and Rural Development in the revision case of appellant, wherein the learned Secretary has stayed the order of Commissioner, has been challenged by some of the private respondents before the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6096 of 2023, in which learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.09.2023 has stayed the proceedings of revision case. Henceforth, the appellant ought to have comply the order of Commissioner directed by learned Single Judge for that they have also filed CONT 724 of 2023, which has been subsequently, withdrawn. He further submits that the impugned order is legal and valid and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶68

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶69

From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has set-aside the order dated 27.01.2021 vide which the Directorate of Panchayat has directed the appellant to challenge the impugned order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the Commissioner to comply the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 11.12.2018 in earlier litigation bearing WPS No. 8017 of 2018, nevertheless, the learned Single Judge has also upheld the submission of appellant that they have challenged the impugned order of Commissioner before the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development and which is pending and moreover, also granted liberty to appellant to pursue the

¶70

10

¶71

case before Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, while also directing the appellant to comply with the order passed by learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 18.05.2020, thus, in our considered opinion it is hot and cold in the same time.

¶72

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while disposing of the writ petition by directing the respondents / appellant to comply with the orders / directions issued by the Commissioner, Sarjuga Division, Ambikapur in Revision No. 162/B-121/2018-19.

¶73

Accordingly, we set aside the direction given to the respondent authorities / appellant to comply with the orders / directions issued by the Commissioner, Sarjuga Division, Ambikapur in Revision No. 162/B-121/2018-19 and the remaining portion of the order shall remain intact.

¶74

The writ appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶75

It is made clear that the writ petition which has been filed by the writ petitioners / private respondents in the present case shall be decided without being prejudiced by this order.

¶76

Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶77

Chandra

Chief Executive Officer v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Executive Officer v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toman Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Shiv Kumar Pao

Mukesh Kumar Dansena @ Mukesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhram

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkali Kumhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh