Partly allowed

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Chattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WPS/1566/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WPS No. 1566 of 2018, the court vacated an interim stay order allowing the petitioner to file a representation regarding his promotion and posting. In WPS No. 2606 of 2018, the court disposed of the petitions noting the petitioner could not draw higher salary due to a mistake in the promotion order.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay in WPS No. 1566 of 2018 was vacated; liberty granted to file representation; WPS No. 2606 of 2018 disposed with direction to regularize salary.

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1566 of 2018

¶4

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late L. P. Shrivastava, Aged About 52 Years presently working as Naib Tahsildar, District Collector Office, Korba, P.S Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue & Emergency Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Veerendra Kumar, Revenue Inspector, Revenue Inspector Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

WPS No. 2606 of 2018

¶12

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late L. P. Shrivastava Aged About 52 Years, presently working as Naib Tahsildar, District Collector Office, Korba, P.S Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Revenue & Emergency Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

3. Veerendra Kumar, Revenue Inspector, Revenue Inspector Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

---- Respondent

¶19

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶22

25.01.2024

¶23

¶24

WPS No. 1566 of 2018

¶25

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

¶26

10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) so far as the same relates to the case of the petitioner.

¶27

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting.

¶28

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶29

2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents whereby partial amendment was made at Serial No.30 of the promotion cum transfer order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P/2) thereby place of posting of Revenue Inspector namely Virendra Kumar, was modified from Naraynapur to Jashpur and new place of posting was also modified from Korba to Jashpur.

¶30

3. Case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed on the post of Patwari on 10.01.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector on 04.07.2016 and was posted at Narayanpur. The petitioner was granted promotion to the next higher post of Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 12.01.2018. The petitioner was relieved from the present place of posting at Narayanpur to join his services on the promotional post of Nayab Tahsildar at Korba on 23.01.2018. Thereafter, impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 09.02.2018 was issued whereby amending the earlier promotion order, the place of posting of the petitioner

¶31

¶32

was changed from Narayanpur to District Jashpur and from Korba to District Jashpur respectively.

¶33

4. It is stated that the impugned order has been issued to accommodate respondent No.3 at Jashpur and the same was issued in most arbitrary manner. While passing the impugned order, the respondents have failed to note that the petitioner was already promoted to the higher post of Nayab Tahsildar and he had nothing to do with the cadre of Revenue Inspector.

¶34

5. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) has been stayed by this Court on 19.02.2018.

¶35

6. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the promotion cum transfer order (Annexure P/2) has not been issued in respect of present petitioner and the said mistake was corrected by an amended order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1). The promotion order was otherwise issued in favour of Virendra Kumar S/o Murlisharan, who was posted at Kunkuri, District Jashpur however, inadvertently the name of the petitioner was continued in the gradation list of Revenue Inspector of District Narayanpur. When the said mistake came to the notice of the Department, impugned order dated 09.02.2018 has been passed and said Virendra Kumar S/o Murlisharan (respondent No.3 herein) has been granted promotion on his place of posting i.e. Jashpur by necessary amendments. It is further stated that the petitioner has taken undue advantage of the initial promotion

¶36

¶37

order dated 12.01.2018, which was passed in respect of respondent No.3 herein, who was posted at Kunkuri, District Jashpur. However, name of the petitioner was continued in the gradation list of Revenue Inspector of District Narayanpur. The petitioner was wrongly relieved by the Collector, Narayanpur as a result, the petitioner joined the office of respondent No.2 against the promotional post of Nayab Tahsildar, Korba. It is further submitted that the promotion order dated 12.01.2018 was issued only in respect of respondent No.3 Virendra Kumar and not in respect of the present petitioner. The Department had no occasion to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotional post of Nayab Tahsildar as he did not complete the minimum experience of five years service on the post of Revenue Inspector as per the Departmental Promotion Rules.

¶38

7. Admittedly, the order dated 09.02.2018 which is only a correctional order of promotion order dated 12.01.2018 whereby certain Revenue Inspectors have been promoted on the post of Nayab Tahsildar. In the said order, at Serial No.30, the name of Virendra Kumar S/o Murlisharan, who was posted in District Jashpur has been mentioned, whereas, the present petitioner, who was posted in District Narayanpur and after promotion was given the new place of posting at District Korba, was relieved from the place of posting on 22.01.2018. When the said fact came into the notice of the State Government that in the promotion order (Annexure P/2) dated 12.01.2018 at Serial No.30, certain mistake has occurred inadvertently, the same was

¶39

¶40

corrected by the order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), which was challenged in WPS No.1566/2018 wherein vide order dated 19.02.2018 an interim protection has been granted in favour of the petitioner that there shall be a stay of the effect and the operation of the impugned order dated 09.02.2018.

¶41

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Writ Petitions.

¶42

9. It is mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that due to mistake in the gradation list, the actual person who was entitled for promotion could not enjoy the fruits of promotion and the present petitioner taking benefit of similar name with malafide intention accepted the relieving order and joined the office of Collector, Korba. When the necessary correction was made vide order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner immediately rushed to this Court and filed the present petition on 11.02.2018 suppressing the above facts and wrongly obtained the interim protection from this Court.

¶43

10. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that it is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, the interim order passed by this Court on 19.02.2018 is vacated. As regards the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 09.02.2018, this Court deems it appropriate not to entertain the said prayer. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority raising his grievances. On such representation being made, the competent authority shall decide the same within a period of one

¶44

¶45

month. It is observed that if the petitioner is found to have committed any misconduct, the concerned authorities shall be at liberty to take strict action against him in accordance with the relevant rules.

¶46

WPS No. 2606 of 2018

¶47

11. The petitioner has filed the present Petition for quashing the order dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby the original promotion order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P/2) has been corrected/modified.

¶48

12. In this Petition, an interim order has been passed on 27.03.2018 and taking into consideration the order passed on 19.02.2018 in WPS No.1566/2018 respondent No.2 was directed to ensure that salary of the petitioner pursuant to the different interim relief granted by this Court has to be released and the same has to be released at the earliest. While deciding WPS No.1566/2018, it is made clear that the petitioner shall only be entitled to draw salary for the post as per his entitlement and he is not entitled to draw higher pay due to mistake which was corrected later on by the order dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P/1).

¶49

13. In view of what has been observed in the preceding paragraphs, it is directed that the concerned Department would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in respect of excess payment made to the petitioner, if any, in accordance with relevant rules, after issuing show cause notice.

¶50

¶51

14. With the aforesaid directions/observations, both the Writ Petitions

¶52

stand disposed of. Sd/-

¶53

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶54

Priyanka

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Chattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Chattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.s.bhagat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr Sandip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Director General Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Rajwade Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. Ramgopal Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Mandhre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.