Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:29320

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6679 of 2014

¶6

Vijay Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Shivkumar Pathak Aged About 54 Years R/o Shri Krishna Nagar, Pahadi Chouk Gudhiyari P.S. Gudhiyari Rapur Tahsil And District. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Tahsil And P.S. Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

and

¶13

WPS No. 6705 of 2014

¶14

Abhay Shrivastava S/o Late Prem Lal Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Quarter No. G-7, Sale Tax Collony, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Civil Line Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur Police Station Rakhi, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Tahsil And P.S. Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Respondents

¶20

and

¶21

WPS No. 6706 of 2014

¶22

2

¶23

Vidhyasagar Singh S/o Late Bholanath Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Vidhyut Sub Station Sector -3, Shivanand Nagar, Thana Khamtarai Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

---- Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶27

The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Tahsil And P.S. Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

---- Respondents

¶29

and

¶30

WPS No. 6643 of 2014

¶31

Riyajul Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Behind Mata Garage Pandri P.S. Mowa Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶34

The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur P.S. Gole Bazar Tahsil And District Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶35

---- Respondents

¶36

and

¶37

WPS No. 368 of 2016

¶38

Chowa Ram Dubey S/o Late Bhuvan Lal Dubey Aged About 59 Years R/o Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balaudabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶39

Rajendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Manaharan Singh, Aged About 59 Years Wrongly Mentioned The Name Of Petitioner No. 2 In Annex P1, R/o Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhattapara, Tahsil Bhattapara, District Balaudabazar Bhattapara Chhattisgarh

¶40

---- Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,

¶43

3

¶44

District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶45

The Director, Urban Administration And Development Departmet, Directorate, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶46

The Municipal Council Bhatapara, Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Bhatapara, District Baloudabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶47

---- Respondents

¶48

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶49

For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Municipal Corporation : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶50

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶51

0 6.08.2024

¶52

Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and finally disposed of by this common order.

¶53

The petitioners in this batch of petitions have challenged the order dated 04.12.2014 and 02.01.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and Chief Municipal Officer, Bhatapara whereby the services of the petitioners were absorbed on the post of Parichalak (Conductor), Pump Attendant and Samaypal on the pay scale of Rs. 520020200+1900 pursuant to instructions issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration and Development Department, Raipur dated 18.09.2013 and 10.12.2007.

¶54

The facts of the present case are that initially the petitioners were appointed in MP. State Road Transport Corporation (for short “MPSRTC”) on the post of Conductor in the year 1984. After the bifurcation of the State of M.P. on 01.11.2000 and the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh notifications dated 13.12.2002 and 27.12.2002 were issued whereby MPSRTC was dissolved

¶55

4

¶56

and all assets, liabilities, rights and employees were handed over to the Chhattisgarh State Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short “CSIDC”) vide circular dated 01.11.2003. As per the circular, the services of the petitioner were under the control of the Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur.

¶57

The services of the petitioners were deputed to various Urban bodies and later on, they were transferred to Municipal Corporation, Raipur vide Order dated 15.10.2008. The State Government took the decision to absorb the services of employees of erstwhile MPSRTC who were on deputation under various Municipal Councils. Circulars were issued on 03.08.2008, 09.02.2009, and 26.08.2009 for the absorption of employees of MPSRTC working under Municipalities/Municipal Councils/Boards etc. Earlier, the petitioners had filed WPS No. 2128 of 2013 claiming therein absorption against equivalent post and the petition was disposed of vide Order dated 22.07.2013, whereby the authorities concerned were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners within a period of three months. Again, a circular was issued for absorption on 18.09.2013 and the petitioners made a representation before the authorities.

¶58

The services of the petitioners were absorbed on the post of Conductor, Pump Attendant and Samaypal vide Order dated 04.12.2014 and 02.01.2016 under the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. It is further stated that a total of 39 posts of Assistant Revenue Inspectors and 29 posts of Deputy Revenue Inspectors were lying vacant in the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, but deliberately, the services of the petitioners were absorbed against the post of Conductors.

¶59

Mr. Bharat Rajput, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶60

5

¶61

submitted that one Prakash Raghuvanshi who was working on the post of Conductor under MPSRTC, his services were absorbed on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector on 04.12.2014. He further submitted that the petitioners were holding Class III posts under the MPSRTC and according to the Circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh from time to time, the services of the petitioners were required to be absorbed on equivalent posts. He also submitted that the services of Class III employees namely, Uttam Kumar Sharma, and Abdul Hakim were absorbed by the Nagar Palika Nigam, Birgaon and Municipal Corporation, Raipur on Class III post. It is further contended that the note sheet of Nagar Palika, Raipur would show that the claim of the petitioners was considered for absorption on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector on the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200+1900 against the post available for direct recruitment. It is also contended that the action of the respondent authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and thus, he prayed to quash the order dated 04.12.2014.

¶62

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation submitted that the petitioners were holding the post of Conductor in MPSRTC and after the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh; a decision was taken to absorb their services. He further submitted that the services of the petitioners have been absorbed on the post of Conductor, Pump Attendant and Samaypal on the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200+1900. He also submitted that there is no monetary loss to the petitioner as the pay scale of Assistant Revenue Inspector, Conductor, Pump Attendant and Samaypal are the same. It is further contended that it was not possible for the Municipal Corporation to absorb the services of the employees of MPSRTC on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. It is also contended that as per Annexure P/10 annexed by the petitioners, entry No. 45 would show that at the relevant time, there were a total of 156 sanctioned posts of Assistant Revenue Inspector. He

¶63

6

¶64

further argued that 50% of posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% from promotion. He also argued that the petitioners could have been accommodated or appointed against the posts available for direct recruitment. He further stated that out of 78 posts, 70 Assistant Revenue Inspectors were working and only 8 posts were vacant, therefore, as per seniority, the claim of 8 employees of MPSRTC was considered for absorption into the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. It is also stated contended that though the petitioners were found eligible for absorption into the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, in the absence of any vacancy, their claim could not be considered. He stated that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶65

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

¶66

Indisputably, the petitioners were the employees of MPSRTC working in the post of Conductor. After the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, their services were sent on deputation under Municipalities, Board and Municipal Corporations. A decision was taken by the State Government to absorb their services. At the relevant time, the petitioners were working under Municipal Corporation, Raipur and Municipal Council, Bhatapara and vide Order dated 04.12.2014 and 02.01.2016 services of the petitioners were absorbed on the post of Conductor, Pump Attendant and Samaypal on the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200+1900. The setup of Municipal Corporation, Raipur would show that at the relevant time, there were 156 sanctioned posts of Assistant Revenue Inspectors, 50% of posts were reserved for direct recruitment and 50% of posts were to be filled by promotion. As per the absorption policy, the services of the petitioner could have been absorbed against the vacant posts of direct recruitment. Entry No. 45 of the Annexure P/10 would show that

¶67

7

¶68

against the 78 posts of direct recruitment, the working strength was 70, and only 8 posts were vacant, therefore, it was not possible for the Municipal Corporation, Raipur to absorb services of all the employees of the erstwhile MPSRTC on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. The pay scale of the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector, Conductors, Pump Attendant and Samaypal are almost the same i.e. Rs. 5200-20200+1900, and thus, the petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss. It is also informed that all the employees have retired on account of superannuation except one, namely, Mr. Riyajul Khan.

¶69

10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶72

$iddhant

Vijay Kumar Pathak v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Pathak v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Seema Kosariya and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mukesh Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Subhash Chandra Borkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

K.l. Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.