Allowed

Bhagwat Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Jun 2024WPS/4176/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Upper Division Teacher, sought writ relief for promotion to Headmaster post, claiming he was excluded after a DPC meeting solely due to a paralytic attack. The High Court found the exclusion arbitrary and directed authorities to hold a review DPC for promotion consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Headmaster by holding a review DPC.

Bhagwat Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4176 of 2013

¶5

Bhagwat Singh, S/o Late Shri Baban Singh, Aged About 61 Years, Posted as Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Bahrasi, Tahsil And Block Bharatpur Distt. Koria Civil and Revenue Distt. Koria, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. The Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Baikunthpur Distt. Korea C.G., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. The Collector, Koria Distt. Koria, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

27.06.2024

¶18

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

¶19

“ 10.1 That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner may be promoted on the post Head Master Middle School with all consequential benefits when he became eligible for the above promotion.

¶20

-2-

¶21

¶22

In alternate the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the pending representation in an objective manner in accordance with law within stipulated time as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.

¶23

10.2. That, any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted. An Affidavit in support of this application if filed herewith.”

¶24

1. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1982 to the post of Assistant Teacher, and was promoted to Upper Division Teacher in the year 2009 vide order dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure P/1). In the year 2012, a provisional seniority list was published by the Department. Later on, vide order dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P/2), Upper Division Teachers were given the promotion to the post of Headmaster, however, the name of the petitioner was not considered for the promotion.

¶25

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the promotion to the post of Headmaster, the DPC meeting was convened on 18.09.2013, after that, promotion to the post of Headmaster was given to the Upper Division Teachers, but the name of the petitioner was not considered though he was eligible. He further submitted that on the grounds of the ailment of the petitioner, he was not considered for promotion as he suffered a paralytic attack due to which, the petitioner could not speak properly. He also submitted that the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation; thus, he contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster.

¶26

1. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submitted that though

¶27

-3-

¶28

on account of medical ailment the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster by the DPC, he has already retired from the services; thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

It is true that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Upper Division Teacher prior to the DPC meeting, and posted in the Government Middle School Bahrasi, Tehsil and Block Bharatpur, Korea. The petitioner was otherwise eligible for the post of Headmaster; a DPC was convened on 18.09.2013, but the name of the petitioner was not considered looking to his medical condition. As pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner that he suffered a paralytic attack, and that was the sole reason for not considering the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster despite having the requisite qualification, and experience, therefore, the reason assigned by the DPC appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

¶31

1. The authorities concerned are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster by holding a review DPC. If the petitioner is promoted to the post of Headmaster, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears etc.

¶32

1. Accordingly, the instant petitioner is hereby allowed .

¶33

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Nadim

Bhagwat Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Singh 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.

Surendra Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Seema Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.