Nazmuddin Siddiqui Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1333 of 2014

¶4

Nazmuddin Siddiqui, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri late Nizamuddin Siddiqui, R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. The Collector, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrajpur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5. Nayantara D/o S. Singh Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, PS Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶12

6. Sablayak Singh S/o Chandrama Singh, Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, PS Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶13

7. Sethoprasad S/o Bigan Sao Aged About 49 Years, Working As Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, PS Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶14

8. Vinod Dwivedi S/o Rajkishore Dwivedi, Aged About 43 Years, Working As Assistant Grade-III, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, PS Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶17

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA
For Respondent No.4	:	Mr. Akash Sahu, appears on behalf
		of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate
For Respondents No.5 to 8	:	Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶19

1 8.01.2024

¶20

2

¶21

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶22

1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned seniority list (Annexure P/5) and impugned gradation list (Annexure P/8) and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to place the respondents No.5 & 6 at their appropriate place, below the petitioner in gradation/seniority list.

¶23

1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent No.4 to terminate the services of respondents No.7 & 8 and recover the unauthorized salary from them, in accordance with law.

¶24

1. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

¶25

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Janpad Panchayat Balrampur on 01.08.1996 on the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate ground. Respondents No.5 & 6, who were working in Janpad Panchayat Mainpat, were reappointed in Janpad Panchayat Balrampur and they have been given seniority from the date of their first appointment in Janpad Panchayat Mainpat and placed them above the petitioner in gradation list in violation of Rule 27 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules 1999 (for short ‘the Rule, 1999’). Further in respect of appointment of respondents No.7 and 8 vide letter dated 21.07.1999, Deputy Director Local Fund Audit, Bilaspur has pointed out certain irregularities . Against the appointment of respondent No.8 Vinod

¶26

3

¶27

Dwivedi, an enquiry was conducted by the SDO Revenue, Ramanujganj on the complaint of Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, Balrampur, where respondent No.4 CO Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur has not made available the service record of the concerned employee and accordingly report has been submitted to CO, District Panchayat, Surguja.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the appointment of respondents No.7 and 8 was irregular and respondents No.5 and 6 were re-appointed in the Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, the petitioner may be placed above them (respondents No.5 to 8) in the seniority list.

¶29

4. In the return filed by the respondent No.4, it has been averred that in the year 1999, the State Government has framed the Rules of 1999. As the respondents No.5 and 6 were appointed earlier than the petitioner and the enquiry in respect of respondents No.7 and 8 has not yet been completed about their appointment and the petitioner is junior to respondents No.5 to 8, therefore, he has no right to claim seniority over and above respondents No.5 to 8. Respondent No.4 has already communicated or sent the entire record of the enquiry report conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Ramanujganj to respondent No.3.

¶30

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 8 would submit that they have been appointed prior to the petitioner and the petitioner has not demonstrated any rule whereby, the said seniority has to be changed.

¶32

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

¶33

4

¶34

8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the fixation of the seniority of respondents No.5 and 6, who were appointed earlier in time in any manner in contravention of the Rules. However, the Rules which have been relied on by counsel for the petitioner came into force later in time in the year 1999, though respondent No.6 was appointed on 02.11.1997. Further in respect of the complaint regarding irregular appointment of Respondent No.7 and 8, the matter is still pending consideration with the Department and unless a final decision is taken by the Department the seniority could not be affected.

¶35

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Petition sans merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶38

Priyanka

Nazmuddin Siddiqui v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazmuddin Siddiqui v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Sao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shatruhan Vs Rikhiram

Naveen Tiwari Vs Bank of India

Vinod Kumar Vasudeo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramashankar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kuldeep Singh @ Rahul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh