Kum.saraswati Kashyap Vs Registrar General And Ors.

1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 1492 of 2014

Kum. Saraswati Kashyap, D/o Late D.P. Kashyap, Aged About 57 Years, C/o Shri N.K. Kashyap, Besides, Saghel Nursing Home, Civil Line P.S. Bilaspur (PO And Distt) C.G. State, PIN 495001

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G. Bodri, Bilaspur C.G. State

¶8

Arun Kumar Poddar, Asst. Registrar, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G. Bodri Bilaspur Dist, C.G. State.

¶9

Ramakant Banjari, Asst. Registrar, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G., Bodri Bilaspur C.G. State

¶10

Sunil Kumar Chauhan, Asst. Registrar, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G. Bodri Bilaspur Dist. C.G. State.

¶11

K. Venkatesh, Asst. Registrar, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G. Bodri Bilaspur C.G. State.

¶12

P. Ram Prasad, Asst. Registrar, Hon’ble High Court Of C.G., Bodri Bilaspur C.G. State.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For petitioner – Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate. For respondent No.1-Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate. For respondent No.2-Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

05/04/2024

Heard.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to grant her notional seniority above one Mr. Arun Kumar Potdar and consider her case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the date Mr. Arun Kumar Potdar was promoted and to grant all consequential benefits.

¶20

The petitioner was initially appointed in the District Establishment in March, 1986. One Arun Kumar Potdar, against whom she claimed the

¶21

2

¶22

seniority, was appointed on 11/10/1986. According to the seniority, as per Annexure P-3, the petitioner’s name appeared at serial no.52 and the name of Shri Arun Kumar Potdar appeared at serial no.53. Subsequently, in the newly established High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, the petitioner along with other employees of the respective district establishments were placed on deputation for a period of two years. On completion of the said period, by order dated 4/01/2003 (Annexure P-6) the deputation period of the petitioner and 30 others was extended. In the High Court Saraswati Kashyap the petitioner joined as AG-III and Arun Kumar Potdar joined as AG-II. The said fact is evident from the orders dated 2/02/2001 & 28/03/2001, respectively. Earlier to that Arun Kumar Potdar was promoted from the post of AG-III to the post of AG-II on the ground that he has passed the accounts training on 13/12/1999. Subsequently, the petitioner passed her accounts training examination on 27/12/2000. Consequently, she was also promoted from the post of AG-III to the post of AG-II on 25^th January, 2002 (Annexure P-7).

¶23

After such promotion, the seniority of the petitioner was restored over and above Shri Arun Kumar Potdar by the District Judge, Bilaspur by order dated 18/07/2002 (Annexure P-8) on a representation made by the petitioner. In a result, the petitioner’s name was placed over and above Shri Arun Kumar Potdar. Subsequently, Shri Arun Kumar Potdar and others were notionally promoted to the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 29/09/2005 (Annexure P-10) and the petitioner contends that her seniority which was restored by the order dated 18/07/2002 of the District Judge was not taken into account resulted into deprivation of her right to be considered for promotion.

¶24

The petitioner being aggrieved by such action of the respondent, filed a representation. However, the same fault continued and the

¶25

3

¶26

petitioner was placed below the name of Prashant Bhatt and above the name of Pradeep Kumar Dongre as AG-II in 2004. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted from AG-II to AG-I and the same was confirmed by order dated 20/07/2008 (Annexure P-15). The said confirmation order by High Court would show that the name of the petitioner as a senior was kept above the name of Shri Arun Kumar Potdar who was placed at serial number 20. It is case of the petitioner that Arun Kumar Potdar and others when were notionally promoted w.e.f. from 29/09/2005, the fact that the petitioner was already placed over and above Shri Arun Kumar Potdar which is evident from the confirmation order dated 20^th July, 2008 (Annexure P-15) passed by the respondent authorities and the earlier restoration of the seniority by order dated 18/07/2002 by the District Judge was not taken into account. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner since as on date stands retired, she may be given the notional promotion with all consequential benefit to her.

¶27

The respondent contends that the note sheet which is attached with this petition would show that the case of the petitioner was considered and since Arun Kumar Potdar acquired the qualification of accounts training on 13/12/1999, as per the amended Rule 12(2) (c) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, he was considered over and above petitioner, as the petitioner had acquired the qualification of accounts training subsequently on 27/02/2000, as such the petitioner was not entitled to be considered over and above Arun Kumar Potdar.

¶28

The counsel for the respondent also refers to the note sheet which is information under RTI (Annexure P-14) to submit that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, which is well merited and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶30

documents.

¶31

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the gradation list which was issued by the respondent vide Annexure P-10 has completely disturbed the seniority. In order to ascertain the factual aspect, the note sheet Annexure P-14 was perused with respect to the people who were transferred on deputation to the High Court. The Rule governing Rule 12 (2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 is also perused which is reproduced hereunder:-

¶32

“(c) In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for “transfer on deputation / transfer”) his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has however been holding already (on the date or absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis, in his “parent department” (earlier it was present department), such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department “whichever is earlier” (earlier it was whichever is later).”

¶33

Perusal of the note sheet further would show that entire deliberations were made taking into fact that Arun Kumar Potdar was placed as senior in the gradation list. Rule 12(2) (c) is not in conflict in this case. These facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted as AG-II on 25/01/2002 and Shri Arun Kumar Potdar was earlier promoted to AG-II on 1/07/2000. But subsequently the petitioner when obtained the qualification of accounts training on 27/12/2000, she made a representation and by order of the District Judge, Bilaspur dated 18/07/2002 (Annexure P-8) her seniority was restored and the following

¶34

5

¶35

order was passed:-

¶36

कार्य ा �लर्या ज�लाएवि ं सत्रन्र्य ा र्य ा धीश, ब�लासपि ुर ( छ. ग.)

¶37

//आदेश //

¶38

कमांक 397 / दो-11-1 / 2001, बि�लासपुर, बिदनांक 18 �ुलाई 2002 इसकार्य ा �लर्याकेआदेशकमांक 64 / दो-11-1 / 2001, बिदनांक 25.1.2002 केअनुसारकुमारीसरस्वतीकश्र्याप, सहार्याकग्रेड-3 कोसहार्याकग्रेड-2 केपदपर वेतनमान 4000-100-6000 मेंपदोन्नतितबिदर्याे�ानेकेफलस्वरूपसहार्याकग्रेड-2 की पदकमसूचीमेंपूव�वत्श्रीरामार्यानदेवांगनकेनामकेनीचेतथाश्रीअरूणकुमारपोद्दार केनामकेउपरकुमारीसरस्वतीकश्र्यापसहार्याकग्रेड-2 कानामप्रतितस्थाबिपतबिकर्य �ाताहै।

¶39

बि�लासपुर, सही /-

¶40

बिदनांक 19.7.02

¶41

जि�लाएवंसत्रन्र्य ा र्य ा धीश

¶42

बि�लासपुर (छ.ग.)

¶43

Reading of the note sheet of High Court would show that the order dated 18/07/2002 of the District Judge whereby seniority of the petitioner was restored was completely given a go bye and the same was not placed before the committee of Judges on administrative side, thereby the actual fact was not brought before the committee.

¶44

The order dated 20/07/2008 (Annexure P-15) whereby the petitioner was confirmed to the post of AG-I would further show that the petitioner was considered to be senior and her name appeared at serial number 19 and name of Arun Kumar Potdar appeared at serial number 20. The part of the gradation list (Annexure P-10) which shows that Arun Kumar Potdar was notionally promoted to the post of Section Officer when his juniors were promoted to the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 29/09/2005 would thereby disturbed the seniority and gradation list which was

¶45

6

¶46

existing. Perusal of the note sheet which was considered by the committee on the administrative side shows that this fact of the restoration of the seniority of the petitioner already took place by order dated 18/07/2002 and was placed above Arun Kumar Potdar and subsequent affirmation of the fact which is fortified by the order of the High Court dated 20^th July, 2008 (Annexure P-15) were not placed for consideration and for the aforesaid reasons, the committee could not deliberate on this issue and representation of the petitioner was rejected on the wrong facts.

¶47

Since Shri Arun Kumar Potdar as per Annexure P-10 was notionally promoted to the post of Section Officer, while giving him the notional promotion, it was specially considered that the benefit to be given to him w.e.f. 29/09/2005 when his juniors were promoted. According to my considered view, as the documents which restored the seniority of petitioner was not placed, certain administrative orders were passed on wrong facts and the same requires to be restored. So applying the law of parity, since the petitioner stands retired as on date, it is directed that the petitioner shall also be entitled for notional seniority as it has been granted to the junior and she shall also be entitled for consequential benefit, if any, so accrues.

¶48

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶51

gouri

Kum.saraswati Kashyap v. Registrar General And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum.saraswati Kashyap v. Registrar General And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneel Kumar Pandhare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Shekh Salim @ Salim Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gyanchand @ Pana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Indal Singh Sidar Vs The State Of ChhattisgaRH and Ors.

Kadir Ansari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.alika Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.