Allowed

Madhusudan Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2024WPS/507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's joining on the post of peon and to comply with directions issued by the District Education Officer, noting the termination was without competent authority approval.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents to accept petitioner's joining on the post of peon and comply with directions issued by the District Education Officer.

Madhusudan Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:39461

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 507 of 2021

¶6

1 - Madhusudan Pradhan S/o Rameshwar Pradhan Aged About 33 Years Posted As Peon, Arya Higher Secondary School, Salkhiya, Lailunga, DistrictRaigarh (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village- Post- Jhagrpur, Tehsil- Lailunga, DistrictRaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

2 - Collector Tribal Development Branch Raigarh, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

3 - District Education Officer District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

4 - Block Education Officer Block- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

5 - General Secretary Arya Vidya Sabha Salkhiya, Block- Lailunga, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

6 - Director Arya Vidya Sabha Salkhiya, Block- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

---- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, P.L. For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

04/10/2024

¶19

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶20

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2024.10.05 14:41:29 +0530

¶21

“(10.1) The, Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned termination order dated 27.06.2020

¶22

2 / 5

¶23

issued by the Director, Arya Vidya Sabha Salkhiya, Block – Lailunga, District -Raigarh (C.G.) (P/1).

¶24

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to release the salary of petitioner for the month March 2020 to December 2020.

¶25

10.3 Grant any other writ (s), order(s), relief (s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of peon by the respondent No.5 and 6 institution vide order dated 30.09.2010 and since then petitioner was continuously discharging his duties with dedication and honesty. During his period of service, petitioner was asked to perform his duties of peon as well as watchman and duty was assigned to petitioner from 8.30 AM till 5.30 in the evening and thereafter from 6.30 in the evening til 7.00 in the morning, against which, petitioner has submitted an application and this was made the basis for issuing show cause notice to petitioner and thereafter the order of termination of service of petitioner was issued by President. He also contended that order of termination is not passed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the State Government has framed Ashashikya Sanstha Anudan Niyam, 2006 (In short ‘the Rules, 2006’), with which services of petitioner is governed. According to Part-8 of the Rules, 2006 punishment can be imposed upon recommendation of the Executive Committee and before that opportunity is to be provided to the concerned employee and only thereafter, order is to be passed. No such proceeding has been initiated before terminating services of petitioner. He also submits that after providing opportunity of hearing

¶27

3 / 5

¶28

to the concerned employee, entire proposal is to be forwarded to the competent authority and thereafter, the final order is to be passed. In support of his contention he referred to the Clause 9 (7) and (8) of Part-8 of the Rules, 2006. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that as the procedure has not been followed, therefore, the order (Annexure P-1) of termination of service be set-aside.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner was served with show cause notice mentioning that petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties. He is not performing his duties in the night. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice, which was duly considered and thereafter, in the proceedings recorded by respondents, decision was taken to terminate the services of petitioner in its meeting dated 08.06.2020. The order of termination of service is in accordance with the rules and regulations as applicable to the respondents institute.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was an employee of respondents No.5 and 6 and relief sought for is against those respondents only.

¶31

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

¶32

It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon by respondents No.5 and 6 in the year 2010. Show cause notice issued to petitioner for the first time on 09.04.2020, which was replied by petitioner on 10.04.2020. Petitioner along with petition has also placed on record Annexure P-13, which is the letter written by District

¶33

4 / 5

¶34

Education Officer, Raigarh to President, Arya Vidya Sabha Salkhiya (Rajpur). In the letter in para-1, President of Arya Vidya Sabha was directed to reinstate petitioner and to disburse the salary from March, 2020 to May, 2020. The order of termination is passed without approval of competent authority i.e. Collector, Raigarh. Annexure P-14 is the letter written by Principal, Arya Higher Secondary School, Salkhiya with the approval of President, Arya Vidya Sabha mentioning that they have received an order for retaining petitioner in service and have asked petitioner to come to school.

¶35

Based on the two documents Annexure P-13 and P-14 when question is posed to learned counsel for petitioner as to why petitioner has not joined service pursuant to the direction issued by District Education Officer and letter written by Principal of the school, he contended that petitioner was not permitted to join, therefore, writ petition was filed on 13.01.2021 within a period of less than two weeks thereafter. In the reply submitted by respondent No.5 and 6, there is no submission with respect to the letter written by District Education Officer and also the letter of Principal of the school run by respondents No.5 and 6 more so when letter is written with approval of the President of Arya Vidya Sabha. When specific question is posed to learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, he could not make satisfactory reply to the documents enclosed along with writ petition as Anexure P-13 and P- 14.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent also could not make any satisfactory reply as to whether the direction issued by the District Education Officer is put to challenge or not. In fact from the letter written vide

¶37

5 / 5

¶38

Annexure P-14, it is appearing that management has complied with the direction issued by the District Education Officer by issuing letter to petitioner asking him to appear in the school.

¶39

In the aforementioned facts of the case, writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.5 and 6 are directed to accept the joining of petitioner on the post for which he was appointed. Respondent No.5 and 6 are also directed to comply with the direction issued by the District Education Officer with respect to petitioner. Petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.5 and 6 on 14^th of October, 2024.

¶40

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶41

Balram

Madhusudan Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Pradhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uday Krishna Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anoop Kumar Dhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saheb Ram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ahilya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghvendra Kishore Agrawal Vs C G Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board