Dismissed

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2024WPS/4808/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of five writ petitions filed by Assistant Teachers challenging their exclusion from promotion lists due to non-counting of pre-transfer service. The court applied the 1999 Service Rules, rejected the claim for automatic seniority calculation, and granted liberty to approach concerned authorities via representation.

What did the court decide?

Claim for determination of inter se seniority from initial appointment date was dismissed; liberty granted to file representation for inter se seniority.

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4809 of 2014

¶4

Smt. Kanchan Pal, aged about 28 years, W/o Narendra Kumar, Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Dharampura, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur, R/o Sector 3, Professor Colony, Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents

¶9

And

¶10

W.P.(S) No. 4688 of 2014

¶11

Hiralal Sahu, aged about 32 years, S/o Feruram Sahu, Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Matiya, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur, R/o Village Ninwa, Post Manohara, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents

¶15

And

¶16

W.P.(S) No. 4689 of 2014

¶17

Nitashree Ghosh, aged about 30 years, W/o Vidhan Ghosh, Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Dhaneli, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur, R/o Block 30, Balaji Nagar Khamtarai, Raipur, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

And

W.P.(S) No. 4690 of 2014

¶25

Smt. Radha Rani Sahu, aged about 39 years, W/o Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Sonbarsa, Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Raipur, R/o Ward No. Behind of Sing Sister Home, Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.)

¶26

---- Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶30

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Simga, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶31

---- Respondents

¶32

And

¶33

W.P.(S) No. 4808 of 2014

¶34

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai, aged about 33 years, D/o Bhagirathi Rai, Assistant

¶35

Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Bhothidih, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, R/o Village Nipania, PO Nioania, Police Station Bhatapara, District Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶36

---- Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶39

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶40

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶41

---- Respondents

¶42

And

¶43

W.P.(S) No. 4810 of 2014

¶44

Shubha Tiwari, aged about 29 years, W/o Deenbandhu Tiwari, Assistant Teachar (Panchayat), Government Primary School Semharadih, Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, R/o Village & PO Nipania (SECR), Block & Police Station Bhatapara, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶45

---- Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶48

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶49

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondents

And

W.P.(S) No. 5445 of 2014

¶54

Smt. Swati Thakur, aged about 29 years, W/o Dinesh Singh Thakur, Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Government Primary School Barouda, Janpad Panchayat Dharsiwa, District Raipur, R/o Block-C-1317, New Rajendra Nagar, Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶55

---- Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶58

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶59

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶60

---- Respondents

¶61

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1/State	:	Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 & 3	:	Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate in WPS Nos. 4809/2014; 4690/2014; 4808/2014; 4810/2014 & 5445/2014
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate in WPS Nos. 4688/2014 & 4689/2014

¶62

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶63

20.06.2024

¶64

1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in this bunch of Writ Petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶65

2. In the above Writ Petitions, the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Science) and (Maths) by the concerned Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioners were transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur issued a list of

¶66

¶67

eligible candidates for promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) in which it was stated that the list has been prepared as on 30.06.2013 and in the list of eligible candidates, the names of the petitioners were mentioned and the objections were invited up to 20.05.2014. But, surprisingly, one more list was published on 21.08.2014 for the promotion of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and in that list, the names of the petitioners were put as not eligible showing the reason that as on 30.06.2013, they had not completed seven years of services. The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) from Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and also prayed for the issuance of direction to count the earlier service period of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment for providing the benefit of promotion.

¶68

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were transferred from one Janpad Panchayat to another but their services rendered in the earlier Panchayats have not been counted for determining inter se seniority of the Shiksha Karmis. He would further submit that the petitioners may be given the liberty to prefer representation raising their grievances concerning the counting of their seniority on account of transfer from one Janpad Panchayat to another before the concerned Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat.

¶69

4. This submission is opposed by the State counsel on the count of

¶70

¶71

delay and laches and would also submit that Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘Rules 1999) does not provide them to count the earlier services rendered by the petitioners.

¶72

5. Learned counsel for the other respondents would support the submissions made by learned counsel for the State.

¶73

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶74

7. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1999 reads as under:-

¶75

“ 27. Appointment of Panchayat employ to and his Panchayat . - Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the appointing authority on application made by any employee of Panchayat Service of other Panchayat, may appoint such employee to a same or equivalent post in the Panchayat service on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon between the two Panchayats, and subject to the following conditions,namely:-

¶76

(i) Such appointment shall not be made to post to be filled by promotion;

¶77

(ii) The person so appointed shall received the junior most rank, for the purpose of seniority, in the cadre of the post to which he is appointed, as it stands on the date of such appointment.”

¶78

8. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the prayer of the petitioners to count their seniority from their initial appointment till their transfer in pursuance of the Rules, 1999 is rejected, however, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer a representation before the concerned Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat/Janpad Panchayat, where they were transferred for counting their seniority from their initial appointment to their transferred place for

¶79

¶80

determining inter se seniority between Shiksha Karmis.

¶81

9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

¶82

10. The concerned authorities are at liberty to take a decision in accordance with the law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶83

11. With these observations, the writ petitions so far as the claim for determining inter se seniority from the date initial appointment is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation regarding their inter se seniority from initial appointment to their transferred place of posting as Shiksha Karmis.

¶84

12. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶87

vatti

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Laxmi Manikpuri Vs Mohandas Manikpuri

Harivallabh Agrawal Vs Assistant Engineer

Devcharan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh andors

Smt. Nirmala Sahu Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shailendra Nirmalkar And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.