Quashed

Sel Singh Netam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Aug 2024WPS/3157/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a daily wage employee recommended for regularization by a committee, challenged the rejection of his claim solely due to unreadable muster rolls. The High Court quashed the refusal order as erroneous and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.02.2015 quashed and matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for fresh decision.

Sel Singh Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:CGHC:31046

¶3

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3157 of 2015

¶7

Sel Singh Netam S/o Govind, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Van Gram Arjuni, Tahsil, Block And Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

…..Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahandi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Forest Range Officer, Ranjge Office, Kasdol, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Forest Range Officer, Range Office, Arjuni, Police Station Arjuni, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

16.08.2024

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus setting-aside the order dated 28.02.2015 along with proceedings dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure P/1).

¶21

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

¶22

-2-

¶23

pleased to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for regularization of the services in the light of the Circular dated 05.03.2008.

¶24

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.

¶25

10.4 Cost of the petition.”

¶26

Mr. Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working in the Forest Department as a daily wage employee since 1995. He further submitted that a Circular was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 05.03.2008 wherein, a decision was taken to regularize the services of the daily wages employees who were appointed between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. Mr. Baghel also submitted that the petitioner continuously worked for more than 10 years, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was referred to the higher authority according to the Circular dated 05.03.2008 but the same was rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur Forest Division on 28.02.2015 only on the ground that some of the muster rolls/documents pertaining to the petitioner are in deteriorated condition and not readable. He further argued that the reason assigned by respondent No. 2 appears to be erroneous as on that ground the claim of a daily wage employee cannot be rejected. Mr. Baghel further stated that the name of the petitioner was recommended for regularization by the Committee but the Divisional Forest Officer declined to regularize the services of the petitioner.

¶27

On the other hand, Ms. Sonkar, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by

¶28

¶29

Mr. Baghel, She submitted that as the documents were not available with respondent No. 2, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. She further submitted that the petitioner did not work continuously for a period of 10 years. She also submitted that for claiming regularization, the petitioner has to fulfill the conditions; firstly that he was appointed by the Competent authority and secondly, there is a vacant post. She lastly stated that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

The conditions as stated by Ms. Sonkar would not attract in the present case as the claim of the petitioner is based on Circular dated 05.03.2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a daily wages employee since 1995 and this fact has not been denied specifically by the respondents. The petitioner moved an application for regularization of services based on a Circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 and a Committee constituted in this regard examined the claim of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner was recommended for regularization. But in the absence of the relevant documents such as muster rolls, attendance sheets etc., respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner as those documents were in deteriorated condition and not readable. The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner appear to be erroneous as on that ground, the claim of an entitled person for regularization cannot be turned down, therefore, the order passed

¶32

-4-

¶33

by respondent No. 2 dated 28.02.2015 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 2/Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation(s) made by the Committee within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed

¶35

of .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Rekha

Sel Singh Netam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sel Singh Netam 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

Basant Pandey Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Santlal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Dindayal Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Arvind Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Singh Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Prasad Bhaiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh