Allowed

Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2024WPS/1799/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed three writ petitions wherein petitioners challenging their reversion from Field Assistant to Chowkidar/Caretaker without inquiry held the order unsustainable as it violated natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Set as side the impugned order dated 12.04.2012 directing the authorities to proceed strictly in accordance with the law.

Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1799 of 2012

¶4

Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar, S/o Late Bodh Ram Kanwar, aged about 36 years, working as Field Assistant, O/o S.D.O. Public Works Department (PWD) Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ----Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2. Engineering-in-Chief, Department, Raipur (C.G.) Public Works

¶8

3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶9

4. Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

5. Executive Engineer,Public Works Department, Division Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ----Respondents ----Respondents

¶11

AND

¶12

WPS No. 1768 of 2012

¶13

Salim Ahamad Qureshi, S/o Late Shri Sultan Ahamad Qureshi, Aged about 36 years, Post- Spot Assistant, R/o Civil Line Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Public Works Department Ministry, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, C.G.

¶17

2. The Engineer in Chief Public Works Department, Raipur, C.G.

¶18

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur Circle, Raipur, C.G.

¶19

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.2, Raipur, C.G.

¶20

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Gariyaband Division, District Gariyaband, C.G. ----Respondents

¶21

AND

¶22

WPS No. 1800 of 2012

¶23

Pawendra Dhar Diwan, S/o Late S.D.Dewan aged about 37 years, working as Field Assistant, 0/0 S.D.O. Public Works Department (PWD) Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ----Petitioner

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Public Works, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) D.K.S.

¶26

2. Engineering-in-Chief, Department, Raipur (C.G.) Public Works

¶27

3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶28

¶29

4. Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶30

5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ----Respondents

¶31

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶32

For Petitioner in WPS/1799/2012 & : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. WPS/1800/2012 For Petitioner in WPS/1768/2012 : None. For Respondents / State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G. A.

¶33

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶34

18.06.2024

¶35

1. Facts of the present case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Chowkidar / Caretaker on compassionate grounds vide order dated 30.07.2004, 17.07.1996 and 13.04.2002, respectively. Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Field Assistant vide order dated 01.08.2009 and 29.08.2009, respectively. After three years and eight months, vide order 12.04.2012, the appointment orders of petitioners to the post of Field Assistants were cancelled by respondent No. 2 and they were posted back to their original posts i.e. Chowkidar / Caretaker. It is also informed that by virtue of the interim order, the petitioners are discharging their duties in the post of Field Assistant.

¶36

2. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WPS No. 1799/2012 and WPS No. 1800/2012 would vehemently argue that the petitioners were regular employees in the Public Works Department and the impugned order dated 12.04.2012 by which they were reverted back to their original posts was taken without holding any departmental inquiry or serving any show-cause notice. Thus, he would submit that the order dated 12.04.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

¶37

3. The table below would depict the date of initial appointment of the petitioners

¶38

¶39

and the date on which they were appointed as Field Assistants:-

¶40

S. No.	Name of petitioners	Date of initial appointment in Govt. Service	Date of appointment on the post of Field Assistant
1.	Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar (WPS/1799/2012)	30.07.2004	01.08.2009
2.	Salim Ahamad Qureshi (WPS/1768/2012)	17.07.1996	29.08.2009
3.	Pawendra Dhar Diwan (WPS/1800/2012)	13.04.2002	01.08.2009

¶41

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds on the posts of Chowkidar/Caretaker. He would further submit that due to a mistake, they were appointed to the post of Field Assistant and when such inadvertence was brought to the notice of the authorities, the same was rectified and orders were recalled. He would also submit that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶42

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on the record.

¶43

6. It is apparent that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Chowkidar/Caretaker on compassionate grounds. After that, they were appointed to the post of Field Assistant by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 01.08.2009 and 29.08.2009, respectively. The petitioners joined their services on the post of Field Assistants and they were getting their salaries attached to the post.

¶44

7. Taking into consideration the decision taken by respondent No. 2 whereby without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without holding any inquiry, the order of reversion has been passed and the petitioners have been reverted

¶45

¶46

back to their earlier posts, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present petitions are hereby allowed. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with the law.

¶47

8. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶50

Ajinkya

Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Bareth Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gaurishankar Soni (Died) Through his Legal Heirs Vs Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank

Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gopal Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Salim Ahamad Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pawendra Dhar Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.