Dismissed

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2024WPS/4885/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses five writ petitions challenging the regularization of services of Data Entry Operators appointed under the e-Panchayat Project. The Court held that since petitioners were not appointed against vacant sanctioned posts and services were discontinued in 2007, they are not entitled to regularization despite completing 10 years of service.

What did the court decide?

No direction for regularization or payment of honorarium was granted.

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:31898

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4661 of 2015

¶7

Narendra Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Mohan Lal Nishad, Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Dongargarh, R/o Ward No. 03, Tikrapara, Dongargarh, P. S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

with

¶17

WPS No. 4868 of 2015

¶18

Khilawan Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Top Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Janpad Panchayat Pithora, R/o At Po Lafinkhurd, P. S. Pithora, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

-2-

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶25

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶26

5 - Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶27

---- Respondents

¶28

with

¶29

WPS No. 4882 of 2015

¶30

Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Thikadar Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Janpad Panchayat Sakti, R/o At Po Temar, Tahsil Sakti, P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶31

---- Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶34

2 - The Collector, Jnajgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶35

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶36

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶37

5 - Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶38

---- Respondents

¶39

with

¶40

WPS No. 4885 of 2015

¶41

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bisahu Ram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Chhuriya, R/o Ward No. 03,

¶42

¶43

Chhuriya, P.S. Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶44

Versus

¶45

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶46

2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶47

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶48

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶49

5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶50

---- Respondents

¶51

with

¶52

WPS No. 4886 of 2015

¶53

Jagdish Prasad Rathore S/o Shri Nanki Dau Rathore, Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Janpad Panchayat Bamhanidih, R/o Village Nandoaur Kala, P. S. Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶54

---- Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶57

2 - The Collector, Jnajgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶58

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶59

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶60

5 - Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat, Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

-4-

with

WPS No. 4826 of 2015

¶65

Chandra Shekhar Sahare S/o Shri Vishnu Sahare, Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Data Entry Operator At Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, R/o Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶66

---- Petitioner

¶67

Versus

¶68

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶69

2 - The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶70

3 - The District Information Officer, N I C, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶71

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶72

5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶73

---- Respondents

¶74

For Petitioners	: Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate along with Mr. Danish Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
For respective	: Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate
respondents

¶75

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶76

22.08.2024

¶77

Since common question of facts and law are involved in this batch of petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

¶78

The facts are as under:-

¶79

¶80

The petitioners were appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator by the District Informatics Officer, NIC, Collectorate in the years 2005-2006, respectively, under the scheme of implementation of e-Panchayat Projects. The scheme came to an end in the year 2007 and the services of the petitioners were discontinued, thereafter they were re-engaged in the concerned Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and the Zila Panchayat by the authorities. They continued on the said posts and the period of employment was extended from time to time. As informed by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, they are still working.

¶81

4. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners were initially appointed by the District Informatics Officer, NIC, Collectorate, later on, Panchayat appointed some of the petitioners on a contract basis. They further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get pay/honorarium according to the Circular issued by the Finance and Planning Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 23.09.2015. They also submitted that the petitioners have been working since 2005-2006 in the post of Data Entry Operator under the respondent authorities, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision with regard to the regularization of their services as they have served for more than 10 years. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on

¶82

-6-

¶83

the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Smt. Shanthalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and others, Writ Petition No. 40204/2012.

¶84

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. They submitted that the petitioners were not appointed according to the Constitutional mandate as no advertisement was issued, no applications were invited, no examination was conducted and no merit list was prepared. They further submitted that the petitioners were appointed for specific projects and they were removed from services in the year 2007. They also submitted that the petitioners were neither contractual appointees nor they were getting an honorarium. They further stated that as the petitioners were not appointed according to the Constitutional mandate against the vacant and sanctioned posts and they further failed to demonstrate that the posts are still lying vacant, therefore, they are not entitled to regularization. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, the State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1.

¶85

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

¶86

Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Data Entry

¶87

¶88

Operator by the District Informatics Officer, NIC, Collectorate in the years 2005-2006, respectively, under the scheme of implementation of e-Panchayat Projects.

¶89

From a perusal of the appointment order, it is apparent that no advertisement was issued, no applications were invited, no examination was conducted, no merit list was prepared even the honorarium was not mentioned in the order of appointment. This order would further reveal that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pithoura and other Panchayats were informed that the petitioners have been appointed therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were appointed by the Gram Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat.

¶90

It is not in dispute that in the year 2007, the services of the petitioners were discontinued and thereafter, they were reengaged, meaning thereby, the petitioners were not in continuance of service under the respondent authorities from the years 20052006. The petitioners are also not contractual appointees as they were not appointed according to any Rules or Regulations.

¶91

10.The petitioners have been working on the post of Data Entry Operator since 2007 without there being any complaints etc. but there is no document to demonstrate that the petitioners were appointed against the vacant and sanctioned posts by the competent authority.

¶92

-8-

¶93

11.In the matter of Smt. Shanthalakshmi (supra) , the High Court of Karnataka has held that a temporarily appointed person who has continued for 10 years without a break, after the decision in Umadevi's case would show that a one-time decision is taken qua departments to regularize the service of persons subject to conditions and thus, the High Court of Karnataka declared that the petitioners therein are entitled to regularization. In the matter of Smt . Shanthalaksmi (supra) , reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malathi Das Vs. Suresh and others, 2014 (13) SCC 449, wherein it is held that the claims of the employees should be decided on principles of parity as similarly situated employees have been regularized by the State even after the decision in [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 therefore, the State is dutybound to regularize the services of other employees. Relevant para is reproduced herein below:-

¶94

" In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us to consider as to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting regularisation on the date of the decision in[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is required to be dealt with in accordance with the conditions stipulated in para 53 of [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed employees having been regularised by the State and in case of some of them such regularisation being after the decision in [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] we are of the view that the stand taken by the appellants in refusing regularization to the respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the appellants stems from their perception and understanding of the decision in [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 :

¶95

¶96

2006 SCC (L&S) 753] we do not hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty-bound to regularise the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order."

¶97

12.In the matter of Sheo Narain Nagar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018 (13) SCC 432 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the true spirit of the decisions in the Uma Devi’s case is not to continue those who have been in daily wage employment without payment of salary to which they would be entitled under the Constitution of India and they cannot be denied the benefit of proper salary or retiral benefits when they have been in service for more than 10 years.

¶98

13.Learned counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (supra) , where it is held that the employees would be entitled to regularization if they satisfy the twin conditions (i) they were appointed by the competent authority against the vacant and sanctioned post, and (ii) posts are still lying vacant.

¶99

14.In the present case, the petitioners were not appointed against the vacant and sanctioned posts. Their services were discontinued in the year 2007. They were appointed by the District Informatics Officer, NIC, Collectorate but never appointed by any of the Panchayats.

¶100

-10-

¶101

15.Though the petitioners were initially appointed by the District Informatics Officer, NIC, later on, the Panchayats appointed some of the petitioners on a contract basis but it did not give any right to the petitioners as no advertisement was issued and the appointment of the petitioners was not in consonance with the Constitution.

¶102

16.In the present case, the petitioners have not arrayed the District Informatics Officer as a party respondent. The petitioners were not appointed by the competent authority and they failed to demonstrate that the posts are still lying vacant for regularization, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out.

¶103

17.Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶104

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶105

Rekha

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Singh Porte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asma Ahmad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt.santoshi Tandan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Shanti Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmikant Jaiswal Vs The Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Ors.

Smt. Chandrika Som Vs State Of Chhattisgarh