Allowed

Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2024WPS/2156/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order cancelling a petitioner's promotion due to lack of opportunity of hearing, holding that civil rights were created upon the initial promotion order. The State is permitted to conduct an enquiry and pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The order of cancellation dated 07.04.2017 was set aside; the State is at liberty to hold an enquiry and pass an appropriate order.

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:28896

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 699 of 2016

¶6

Munna Lal Tandey S/o Late Shri Gangaram Tandey, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent Local Election Collectorate Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund Civil and Revenue Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶9

Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Secretary Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur, D K S Bhawan Near Old Mantralaya Raipur, Civil and Revenue Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶11

Collector and District Election Officer Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶12

A Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE ANNAJEERAO RAODate: 2024.08.0610:22:37 +0530 WPS No. 2156 of 2017

¶13

Munna Lal Tandey S/o Late Shri Gangaram Tandey, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent Local Election Collectorate Mahasamund, P. S. Mahasamund Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Under Secretary, Revenue and Deserter Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur, D K S Bhawan Near Old Mantralaya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,

¶18

Collector and District Election Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶19

For Petitioners	: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate

¶20

¶21

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri)

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

02/08/2024

¶24

Both the cases are being heard together as the common thread passes through the issue.

¶25

According to the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II by order dated 16.01.2012 and since his name was not properly placed in gradation list, he filed the instant petition bearing W.P. No.669/2016 to place his name in proper gradation list. When the writ petition was filed, notices were issued on 11.3.2016. Notice having been issued, the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled by subsequent order dated 07^th April, 2017 (Annexure P-1) for which W.P.No.2156/2017 was filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was protected by interim order dated 15.05.2017 and was continuously working on the promotional post and before such cancellation order of promotion was issued on 07.04.2017, no opportunity of hearing was given, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside for want of proper opportunity of hearing and the rules of Audi Alteram Partem was by-passed.

¶27

Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of the petitioner. He submits that return has been filed by the State and para 7 of the return would show that the State came out with a stand that opportunity of hearing in this matter would be a futile effort, therefore, without giving any opportunity of hearing, promotional order dated 16.01.2012 was cancelled as it is not in accordance with law.

¶28

Be that at it may, when the right was conferred by order dated 16.01.2012 and he was continuously working on promotional post almost for 5 years, certain civil rights were created in his favour and in order to dispense with benefit of promotion, opportunity of hearing should have been given. Admittedly, the opportunity was not given before cancellation order of

¶29

¶30

promotion was passed. Therefore, under the circumstances, the order of cancellation dated 07.04.2017 cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. However, the State would be at liberty to hold enquiry and thereafter may pass appropriate order, if so desires.

¶31

With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed off.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(GOUTAM BHADURI) JUDGE

¶34

Rao

Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Resham Lal Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nishamunni Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mailprakash Toppo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh