Dismissed¶53

Ramnath Ram Rawani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2024WPS/1153/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrospective regularisation denied; regularisation ordinarily prospective not retrospective; contingency paid employee; Ward Boy; seniority of regularly appointed employees; ad hoc appointees; initial appointment not in accordance with rules/constitutional scheme; benefit of intervening service for seniority; regular pay scale and promotion parity (Annexure P/1); liberty to file representation; five-year delay in filing writ petition; Chhattisgarh High Court WPS; Health Department Jashpur; V. Thippa Setty; Sheela Rani; M. Janardhan; Masood Akhtar Khan.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation before the competent authority for consideration of grant of regular pay and promotion, if any, in accordance with law; writ petition dismissed with no costs. ¶53

Ramnath Ram Rawani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file representation before the competent authority for consideration of grant of regular pay and promotion, if any, in accordance with law; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was regularised to the post of Ward Boy only from 31.03.2011, is entitled to retrospective regularisation from his initial date of appointment (22.09.1986) as a contingency paid employee. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's initial appointment was as a contingency paid employee on a fixed remuneration and was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme and rules, and he was regularised only vide order dated 31.03.2011, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court the petitioner is not entitled to retrospective regularisation.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the competent authority to consider his case for grant of regular pay and promotion, if any, which the competent authority should consider in accordance with law; the Court expressed no opinion on that point.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 1153 of 2016 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, single bench, Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, 14.10.2024): A Ward Boy, initially appointed on 22.09.1986 as a contingency paid employee at Rs.295/- per month and regularised only from 31.03.2011 vide Annexure P/3, sought retrospective regularisation from his initial date of appointment, citing regular pay scale and promotion given to similarly situated employees vide Annexure P/1. Applying the Supreme Court decisions in Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others ((1998) 8 SCC 690), Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani ((2007) 15 SCC 230), M.Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others (1994 Supp (3) SCC 298) and Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others ((1990) 4 SCC 24), the Court held that, as his initial appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme and rules and he was regularised only vide order dated 31.03.2011, the petitioner was not entitled to retrospective regularisation. Liberty was given to file a representation before the competent authority for grant of regular pay and promotion, if any, to be considered in accordance with law, on which the Court expressed no opinion. Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶3

2024:CGHC:40245

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1153 of 2016

¶7

1 - Ramnath Ram Rawani S/o Shri Late Debi Ramrawani, Aged About 54 Years Resident Purani Toli, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶11

2 - The District Medical Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer - Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner :- Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶17

14.10.2024

¶18

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent authorities to grant him retrospective regularisation from his initial date of appointment i.e. 22.09.1986.

¶19

2 / 7

¶20

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶21

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ward Boy as contingency paid employee for Rs.295/- per month vide order dated 22.09.1986 (Annexure P/2). Later on, vide order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was regularized to the post of Ward Boy from the date of order. Thereafter, the petitioner after passing of five years has filed this writ petition stating that he is entitled for regularisation/regular pay scale from his initial date of appointment i.e. 22.09.1986, as it has been given to the other similarly situated employees vide order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P/1).

¶22

3. In the return filed by the State, it has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ward Boy as contingency paid employee vide order dated 22.09.1986 (Annexure P/2) and later on, vide order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P/3), he was regularized to the said post from the date of order, which the petitioner had accepted without any clamour or protest, therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation from the retrospective date.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the similarly situated employees have been granted regular pay scale and promotion vide Annexure P/1 and,

¶24

3 / 7

¶25

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶26

therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of retrospective regularisation and other consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment.

¶27

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

6. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ward Boy vide order dated 22.09.1986 (Annexure P/2) as contingency paid employee for Rs.295/- per month. Later on, vide order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was regularised to the post of Ward Boy from the date of order. However, after passing of five long years, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 08.04.2016, claiming retrospective regularisation.

¶29

7. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others 1 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularisation

¶30

1 (1998) 8 SCC 690

¶31

4 / 7

¶32

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶33

should ordinarily be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under :

¶34

“ 2. …………It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely

¶35

5 / 7

¶36

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶37

affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.”

¶38

8. Similarly, in Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani 2,

¶39

the principles of law laid down in V. Thippa Setty (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval and held in para 11 as under :

¶40

“ 11. In Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularisation was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal had directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. This Court ordered that care must be taken to see that regularisation do not upset the seniorities of regular

¶41

2 (2007) 15 SCC 230

¶42

6 / 7

¶43

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶44

appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked.

¶45

9. In the matter of M.Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others 3 it has been held by their Lordships that the grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v.

¶46

State of Madhya Pradesh & Others 4 considering the Rules of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 7, it has been held relying upon the earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority.

¶47

10. Reverting to the facts of the case, since the petitioner was regularised on the aforesaid post only vide order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P/3) and his initial appointment was as a contingency paid employee on a fixed remuneration and was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme and rules and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the

¶48

3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298

¶49

4 (1990) 4 SCC 24

¶50

7 / 7

¶51

(WPS No. 1153 of 2016)

¶52

petitioner is not entitled for retrospective regularisation. Even so, the petitioner is at liberty to file representation before the competent authority to consider his case for grant of regular pay and promotion, if any, which should be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, however, this Court has not expressed any opinion in this regard.

¶53

11. As such, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s).

¶54

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶55

@d!t!

Ramnath Ram Rawani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Ram Rawani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Manikpuri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhageerathi Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sashi Sharma Alias Ganesia Bai Vs Smt. Meena Sharma

Bharat Notiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohini Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Thapa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh