Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2024WPS/301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees directly recruited in Chhattisgarh's State Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences claimed pay parity with equivalent-rank police personnel based on a 2000 notification. The court held the notification benefits only deputationists carrying police pay scales, not direct recruits governed by the Rules of 2014. All writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dinesh Kumar Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶3

2024:CGHC:30888

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 301 of 2016

¶7

Dinesh Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Narrottam Nishad, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Stenographer, State Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P. S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Additional Director General Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P. S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Superintendent Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

WPS No. 347 of 2016

¶16

Hitesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Shri Ramvishal Dhruv, Aged About 33 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Grade Ill, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Digitally Chhattisgarh signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2024.09.02 10:24:56 +0530

¶20

2 / 6

¶21

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶22

Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶23

Additional Director General Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶24

Superintendent Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offiences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

WPS No. 448 of 2017

¶27

Rakesh Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Shatrughan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Constable (M), State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, R/o Kashiram Nagar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

----Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

Additional Director General Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶33

Superintendent Of Police, State Bureau Of Investigation, Economic Offences Chhattisgarh Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶34

---- Respondents

¶35

For Petitioners : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. Adv. General

¶36

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶37

Order On Board

¶38

14/8/2024

¶39

All the writ petitions heard analogously and decided together by this common order because common facts and question of law has been raised and the grounds of challenge are overlapping with each other.

¶40

3 / 6

¶41

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶42

(i) The fundamental challenge in these petitions is that the petitioners were working in the Department of State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Chhattisgarh pursuant to the Rules namely; Service Rules of the General Administration Department. According to the petitioners, the following notification was promulgated by the State Government on 1-11-2000 :

¶43

Notification No. 8/G.A.D./2000/No. 2(A)-775-97-D (4)-II dated the 1st November, 2000.- In exercise of the powers under section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861) and in further clarification of notification No. 4/G.A.D./2000 dated 1-11-2000 by the State Government, hereby provided as follows :-

¶44

(i) That the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences Chhattisgarh, Police Station shall be a part of the “General Police District” and all its executive and ministerial Officers and men shall be Police Officers of equivalent rank and denomination.

¶45

(ii) That the General Administration Department of the Government shall continue to be the administrative department of the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, Chhattisgarh, Police Station as already notified by No. 4/G.A.D./2000 dated 1-11-2000.

¶46

(iii) That all Police Officers of the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, Chhattisgarh Police Station shall be subject to discipline, control, enrollment, promotion, superannuation and other privileges and liabilities in the same manner as Police Officers of equivalent rank and denomination of the General Police District.

¶47

(iv) That Superior Police Officers of the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, Chhattisgarh, Police Station by whatever designation called, shall exercise appointing, disciplinary and appellate authority over subordinate ranks in the same manner as officers of equivalent rank of the General Police district do over corresponding ranks of the district. In particular, the Director General of this police

¶48

4 / 6

¶49

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶50

station shall exercise over his subordinate ranks all disciplinary and appellate powers as are vested in the Inspector General of Police under section 4 of the Act.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that :

¶52

(a) The petitioner in WPS No.301 of 2016 (Dinesh Kumar Nishad) was appointed in the Department of EoW as Steno-Typist in the year 2009 and subsequently promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 2014. He would submit that the pay scale of Steno-Typist in the EoW is Rs.5200-20200+GP 1900 whereas the pay scale of ASI (M), which is equivalent to Steno-Typist of EoW, in the Police Department is Rs.5200-20200+GP 2400. Likewise, the pay scale of Stenographer in EoW is Rs.5200-20200+GP 2800 whereas the pay scale of Subedar (M), which is equivalent to Stenographer of EoW, in the Police Department is Rs.9300-34800+GP 4200.

¶53

(b) The petitioner in WPS No.347 of 2016 (Hitesh Kumar Dhruv) was appointed in the Department of EoW as AG III in the year 2007. The pay scale of AG III in the EoW is Rs.5200-20200+GP 1900 whereas the pay scale of ASI (M), which is equivalent to AG III of EoW, in the Police Department is Rs.5200-20200+GP 2400.

¶54

(c) The petitioner in WPS No.448 of 2017 (Rakesh Manikpuri) was appointed in the Department of EoW as Constable (M) in the year 2009. The pay scale of Constable (M) in the EoW is Rs.4750-7440+GP 1300 whereas the pay scale of Constable (M) in the Police Department is Rs.5200-20200+GP 1900.

¶55

5 / 6

¶56

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶57

(d) Learned counsel would submit that from the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that difference exist in the pay scales of the EoW and Police Department. He would submit that the petitioners would be entitled for the benefits of notification dated 1-11-2000, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The said notification speaks that the persons who are in the EoW shall be treated like that of Police Department. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioners submitted representation, the same was erroneously rejected. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled the pay scales at par with the personnel of the Police Department.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the State, ex adverso , would submit that the Chhattisgarh State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences Services Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules, 2014’) would show that the administrative post on which the appointment is 100% by deputation from the Police Department that notification would be applicable to them and not to the entirety of the staff. He would further submit that the other posts, which are not on 100% deputation and the recruitment and promotions are made on a particular pay scale the same cannot be treated equivalent and the petitioners, who are appointed in the EoW, cannot claim parity at par with the personnel of the Police Department.

¶59

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶60

The notification dated 1-11-2000 was read in between the lines. Initially the petitioners were appointed in the Department of EoW as per the Service Rules of the General Administration Department. Perusal of the notification dated 1-11-2000 read with the Rules, 2014 would show that

¶61

6 / 6

¶62

WPS No.301 of 2016 and other connected matters

¶63

certain posts in the Department of EoW are required to be filled by 100% deputation and whereas certain posts are to be filled in the Department by direct recruitment. The persons, who are posted in the EoW on deputation the benefit of notification would be applicable, as they had the original post/lean over the post on which they were appointed. The notification only clarifies this fact and when the person is appointed on deputation in the EoW from the Police Department he will carry his pay scales and the benefits which he was getting in the Police Department whereas the persons who are not on deputation and appointed directly or promoted in the EoW they will have a different role to be played and the notification dated 1-11-2000 cannot be applied universally, as it cannot be read in isolation without reading of the Rules, 2014.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners will not be entitled to claim parity in respect of the pay scales at par with the persons who are getting pay scales of Police Department, as there are two different posts. Even otherwise, when the notification dated 1-11-2000 was in existence, the Rules, 2014 was promulgated, which also removed all the ambiguity about the pay scales.

¶65

As a sequel, all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶66

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶67

Ashu

Dinesh Kumar Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dinesh Kumar Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lallu Lal Shrivastava L. L. Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amrit Lal Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Ramteke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Manikpuri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Lal Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh