Rajendra Prasad Bhaiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:31107

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4165 of 2015

¶6

Rajendra Prasad Bhaiya S/o Late Anjor Ram, Aged About 44 Years Working On The Post Of Additional Superintendent Of Police, At Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. The Under Secretary, Department Of Home Police, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. The Inspector General Of Police Administrtion, Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6. The Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/ : Ms. Saumya Sharma, P. L. State

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

16/08/2024

¶18

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

¶19

10.1 issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing,

¶20

10.2 set aside the impugned orders dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2;

¶21

10.3 issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the absence period of 274 days of the petitioner in the total leave available in the service record of the petitioner i.e. 288 days Earned-Leave and 130 days Commuted-

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

Leave;

¶24

10.4 grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Dongargarh, was transferred to Bijapur vide order dated 06.08.2011. The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.08.2011 by filing WPS No. 4686 of 2011 and the order of status quo was passed in his favour on 16.08.2011. He further submits that the petition was finally disposed of on 01.02.2012 and the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon allowed the petitioner to join services on 09.05.2012. He argues that the petitioner could not join services from September, 2011 till April 2012, therefore he moved a representation for payment of salary for that period which was to be decided as under:-

¶26

09.08.2011 to 06.11.2011	90 days’ Earned Leave
07.11.2011 to 04.05.2012	180 days’ Half Paid Leave
05.05.2012 to 08.05.2012	04 days’ Extra-ordinary Leave

¶27

He further argues that WPS No. 1588 of 2013 was dismissed on merits. Thereafter, WA. No. 281 of 2014 was preferred which was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2014 reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner to pursue representation. He also argues that the petitioner moved a representation before respondent No. 2 to adjust the period of absence of 274 days in the total leaves available in the service record. Such representation was rejected in a cryptic manner vide order dated 04.09.2015. He prays that the order dated 04.09.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and deserves to be quashed.

¶28

3 / 4

¶29

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes. She submits that the petitioner remained absent from services, therefore a decision was taken by the authority concerned and the absence of the petitioner was converted as stated above. She further submits that the claim of the petitioner was dismissed on merits in WPS No. 4686 of 2011 and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. She states that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

5. Earlier, in WPS No. 4686 of 2011, the petitioner had challenged the decision taken by the respondent authorities dated 22.02.2013 and in that petition, there was no prayer for the conversion of the period of absence of 274 days against the available leaves and thus, the facts of the present case are entirely different.

¶32

6. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by respondent No. 2 whereby his representation has been rejected in a cryptic manner without assigning reason(s). It appears that the authority concerned has rejected the representation made by the petitioner without discussing the provisions of the law or grounds raised by the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 04.09.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2015 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No. 2 to decide it afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

7. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶38

Ajinkya