Petitioner sought condonation of service interruption caused by resignation to claim senior scale benefits. Bench held that exception under Rule 28(2) barred condonation, dismissing the writ petition.
Impugned order of rejection upheld; service interruption not condoned; parties to bear own costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 1 / 6
2024:CGHC:39498
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4093 of 2014
1 - Smt. Shashikanta Bharadwaj W/o Shri Anil Kumar Bharadwaj Aged About 63 Years R/o Block 58/2, Motilal Nehru Nagar West, Durg, PS Nehru Nagar, Revenue And Civil Distt Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner, Directorate Of Higher Education, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
For Petitioner:- Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board
04.10.2024
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P/1), passed by the State Government, whereby the representation of the petitioner for condoning the interruption in her service from 02.06.1977 to 28.11.1977, for the purpose of placing her
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 2 / 6
in senior scale/selection grade, in accordance with order dated 10-12/02/1992 (Annexure P/2).
2. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.3419/2005 before the State Administrative Tribunal, which was ultimately transferred to this Court, and this Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P/3), directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 05.02.2013, the representation of the petitioner was decided and rejected vide the impugned order, which is sought to be challenged by this writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was first appointed to the post of Lecturer (Home Science) at Kasturba Gram Rural Institute, Indore (Grant-in-aid Institution of the Government of Madhya Pradesh) on 10.07.1972, and she was confirmed on the said post on 31.12.1974. However, on 02.06.1977, the petitioner resigned from the aforesaid institute and her resignation was accepted. Later on, vide order dated 16.11.1977, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer (Home Science) at Home Science Women’s College, Jabalpur,
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 3 / 6
through her selection by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, which she joined on 28.11.1977. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted Senior Grade Pay and Selection Grade Pay vide orders dated 21.12.1989 and and 03.04.1998 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal at Late Devi Prasad Dhoye Government College, Saja on 30.05.2003. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the State Administrative Tribunal, which was ultimately transferred to this Court, whereby the petitioner was seeking direction to the respondent authorities to count the petitioner’s service at Kasturba Gram Rural Institute, Indore, for placing her in the senior scale/senior grade pay scale, which has already been granted on 04.11.1996, in accordance with order dated 10-12/02/1992 (Annexure P/2). The said writ petition was disposed of vide this Court’s order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P/3), by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make representation before the concerned authority, however, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order.
4. Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State Government is completely unjustified in rejecting the case of the petitioner, as by
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 4 / 6
virtue of Rule 28(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (herein after to be referred to as the ‘Rules, 1976’ for brevity), since the petitioner earlier rendered services, though at a Non-Government College but aided by the State Government, therefore, the interruption in her service from 02.06.1977 to 28.11.1977 be treated as condoned by virtue of Rule 28(1) of the Rules, 1976 and thus, she be granted all the consequential benefits.
5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State Counsel would submit that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the State Government, as the case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 28(2) of the Rules, 1976 and since she has resigned from the other institution, the interruption in her service cannot be condoned under Rule 28(1) of the Rules, 1976. As such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 5 / 6
7. For the sake of convenience, Rule 28 of the Rules, 1976, under which the interruption in service is sought to be condoned is reproduced as under:-
28. Condonation of interruptions in service. -
(1) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service book, an interruption between two spells of civil service rendered by a Government servant under Government shall be treated as automatically condoned and the preinterruption service treated as qualifying service.
(2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation in a strike.
(3) The period of interruption referred to in subrule (1) shall not count as qualifying service.
8. A careful perusal of Rule 28 of the Rules, 1976 would show that sub-rule (1) clearly states that an interruption between two spells of civil service rendered by a Government servant under the Government shall be treated as automatically condoned and the preinterruption service be treated as qualifying service. However, sub-rule (2) is exception to sub-rule (1), as sub-rule (1) shall not apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation in a strike.
9. In the case at hand, the petitioner was first appointed at Kasturba Gram Rural Institute, Indore, which was not a
(WPS No. 4093 of 2014) 6 / 6
Government College but a Grant-in-aid Institution of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and, thus, she was not a Government servant at that time and Rule 28(1) would not be applicable to her. Nevertheless, on assuming that Rule 28(1) would apply to the petitioner, but Rule 28(2) which is exception to Rule 28(1), clearly states that in case of interruption caused by resignation, Rule 28(1) would not be applicable.
10. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner has resigned from her earlier service on 02.06.1977 and then she was duly appointed at a Government college on 16.11.1977, which she joined on 28.11.1977, therefore, by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 28, the interruption in her service between 02.06.1977 to 28.11.1977, cannot be condoned.
11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
@d!t!
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an interruption in service caused by resignation can be condoned under Rule 28(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Whether the exception under Rule 28(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 applies when the service was at an aided institution.
Whether a representation for condonation of service interruption after resignation should be accepted.
Shashikanta Bharadwaj
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department
Commissioner, Directorate Of Higher Education, Raipur
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
