Saroj Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:33863

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3706 of 2014

¶6

Saroj Kumar Tiwari S/o Vashisth Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kouhakunda Bendrachua P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Distt. Raigarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Chief Conservator Of Forest (P.C.C.F.) Arnya Bhawan Medical College Road Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶11

The Conservator Of Forest, Forest Circle Jarhabhata Road Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

¶12

Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : None, even in the second round. For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

0 3.09.2024

¶18

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

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and issue regular appointment order in view of the order dated 30.06.2012.

¶20

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the

¶21

2

¶22

services of the petitioner from the order dated 15.07.2014 when regular appointment order of other persons have been issued by the respondents.

¶23

10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition.”

¶24

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner has been working in the Forest Department since 1997. The name of the petitioner was recommended to the scrutiny committee for regularization in light of the Circular dated 05.03.2008 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh vide memo dated 26.09.2008 along with other eligible Daily-Rated employees. The Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur regularized the services of DailyRated employees who worked in the forest department between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 on the post of Forest Guard and an order in this regard was issued on 07.11.2009 but the name of the petitioner was not considered. A letter dated 27.07.2010 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur would show that there was no vacancy of Driver for the unreserved category, therefore, the name of the petitioner was recommended for regularization on any other post. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur vide letter dated 24.01.2012, directed the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur to examine the matter of the petitioner for regularization. A list was prepared by the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur which shows that the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1997 as a labourer thereafter the name of the petitioner was recommended to the scrutiny committee for regularization according to the circular dated 05.03.2008, issued by the State Government. Though the name of the petitioner was recommended for regularization, the same has not been considered till date; therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶25

3

¶26

Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner submitted an application on 05.08.2008 for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of daily rated employees. He further submitted that in some of the documents, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed in the year 1996, whereas, in some of the applications he has stated that he was appointed on 01.01.1997. He also submitted that the name of the petitioner was formally forwarded for consideration by the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh. It is contended that in the letter dated 20.06.2012, the name of the petitioner was wrongly recommended for regularization. It is also contended that the petitioner has no right to regularization. He submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

From a perusal of the list prepared by the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1997 as a labourer. The name of the petitioner was recommended to the scrutiny committee for regularization in light of the circular dated 05.03.2008, but his name was not considered. On 27.07.2010, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for regularization of the services of the petitioner on any other post as post of driver for unreserved category was not available, and in turn, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur directed the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur to take appropriate steps in this regard.

¶29

Since the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1997, he was within the zone

¶30

4

¶31

of consideration for regularization as per the circular issued by the State dated 05.03.2008, and therefore, the name of the petitioner was recommended for regularization.

¶32

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents No. 3 and 4, and in turn, respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization strictly in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008 and directions/instructions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest. The decision shall be taken by the competent authority within an outer limit of 120 days from receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

$iddhant

Saroj Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagi Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. And Anr.

Ku. Sangeeta Sahu Vs State Govt. Of C.g. and Ors.

Ram Prakash Choudhary Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sarita Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sej Kumar Sahu And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.