Disposed

Surendra Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jun 2024WPS/316/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition challenging an assistant engineers' seniority list. Observing the petitioner held a higher post when the list was issued, the court directed the executive to consider the petitioner's representation within 120 days, stating he would receive consequential benefits if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2009 within 120 days and grant consequential benefits if the claim is found to have substance.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 316 of 2010

¶5

Surendra Kumar Jain S/o Late B.K. Jain aged about 56 years, R/o MIG Lux II, Agyaeya Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt.-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Public Works Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Shri D.K. Pradhan Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Shri D.K. Agrawal, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur(Zone) District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Shri S.K. Kori, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway, Raipur Zone, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6. Shri J.S. Lulu, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7. Shri Pandeshwar Sai, Superintending Engineer, Ambikapur Circle, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶15

8. Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatpahri, SE. Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

9. Shri A.K. Madhan, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Circle, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

10. Shri S.K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, B & R Circle No. 1, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

11. Deleted vide order dated 24.04.2024(Shri S.K. Paroha, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Office of E-n-C, Raipur, Chhattisgarh)

¶19

12. Shri A.K. Chakravarty, Superintending Engineer, Office of E-n-C, Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

13. Shri R.K. Goyal, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle No. 2, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

14. Shri D.K. Sahgal, Under Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of C.G, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

15. Shri C. Chandrakar, Superintending Engineer, Office of E-n-C, Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

16. Shri V.K. Shukla, Executive Engineer, Office of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

17. Shri A.K. Trivedi, Superintending Engineer, Office of E-n-C, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶27

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶30

2 7.06.2024

¶31

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶32

“10.1 To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order quashing/setting aside the impugned seniority list dated 2/6/2009 published by the Respondents in so far as it relates to the seniority of the petitioner from 22/4/2003on which date, he was promoted to the post of EE.

¶33

10.2 To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction commanding the Respondents to prepare proper seniority list of Executive Engineers in the Department, on the basis of their length of service in that cadre according to rules without taking into account the revision of sonority of AEs as the cadre of EE is separate and independent of AEs Cadre.

¶34

10.3 To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to the Respondents commanding them to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date of his promotion on ad-hoc basis to the post of EE as it was done after completing all the formalities required to be completed for promoting an employee on regular basis and his services were regularized in the cadre of EE in continuation of that ad-hoc promotion without any break in service and consider the petitioner for further promotions on the basis of that seniority with all consequential benefits.

¶35

10.4 To award the cost and expenses of this petition.

¶36

10.5 To issue any other writ or directions or orders in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents upon these facts and in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶37

Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶38

initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Overseer (Civil) in the Public Works Department (P.W.D.) on 21.11.1973, thereafter, he resigned from services

¶39

¶40

of P.W.D. and joined services of Bridge Corporation of Madhya Pradesh as a Junior Engineer on 27.04.1979. He further submitted that on 12.03.1992, the Bridge Corporation was abolished and the services of its employees were transferred to the P.W.D. According to the conditions concerning seniority, the confirmed employee of the P.W.D. was placed above in place of a confirmed employee of the Bridge Corporation, and the same was challenged by filing WP No. 3143 of 2002, which was disposed of vide Order dated 30.07.2003. The High Court of M.P. while disposing of the petition (WP No. 3143 of 2002), in concluding para - [24 f] held that the confirmed employee of PWD shall be placed above in place of confirmed employee of the Corporation . The authorities were directed to formulate a policy and revise the seniority list.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the first seniority list was published on 27.09.2005 with regard to Assistant Engineers, at that time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department vide Order dated 03.10.2003. The petitioner filed WP No. 5876 of 2006 challenging therein the seniority list of Assistant Engineers published by the department on 03.10.2005. During the pendency of that petition, another final seniority list dated 02.06.2009 was published by the department; therefore, that petition was withdrawn being rendered infructuous. He further contended that the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to revise the seniority list of Assistant Engineers which was published on 02.06.2009 in compliance with the order passed by the High Court of M.P. He also contended that the petitioner has made various representations to the authorities to consider his grievance, but till date, no heed has been paid.

¶42

On the other hand, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, learned State counsel would submit that

¶43

¶44

when the first seniority list of Assistant Engineers was published on 03.10.2005, at that time the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He further submitted that since the petitioner is not holding that cadre, he cannot pray to place him at the appropriate place in the seniority list.

¶45

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

¶46

The High Court of M.P. while disposing of the petition WP No. 3143 of 2002 with regard to the seniority of confirmed employees of Bridge Corporation and Public Works Department has given specific direction in para [24 f] which reads as under:-

¶47

“ [ 24 f] The confirmed employees of PWD shall be placed above the confirmed employees of the Corporation.”

¶48

In the year 2003, when the order was passed, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Engineer and in the same order; he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, meaning thereby, on 03.10.2005, when the seniority list was published, the petitioner was not holding the post of Assistant Engineer.

¶49

Earlier, WP No. 5876 of 2006 was filed challenging therein the seniority list dated 03.10.2005, but the same was withdrawn being rendered infructuous, as the subsequent seniority list was published by the department on 02.06.2009. The petitioner filed this petition challenging the seniority list dated 02.06.2009 pertaining to Assistant Engineers, but it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2003 itself.

¶50

Since the petitioner has made various representations to the State authorities to consider his claim and rectify the mistake committed by the State in publishing

¶51

¶52

the seniority list dated 02.06.2009, the present petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 1 to consider the representation dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P/13) preferred by the petitioner in an objective manner preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

10. If the petitioner is found eligible or there is substance in the claim made by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall grant consequential benefits attached to the post of the petitioner.

¶54

11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of .

¶55

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶56

$iddhant

Surendra Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Jain 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

Kishan Lal Azad Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Amitabh Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gurudayal Sen Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bhagwat Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Seema Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.