Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2024WPS/699/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of promotion without opportunity of hearing set aside; ~5 years' service on promotional post created civil rights; State free to hold fresh enquiry — Munna Lal Tandey v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 699 of 2016 & WPS No. 2156 of 2017, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Justice Goutam Bhaduri, 02/08/2024.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of; the cancellation order of promotion dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) is set aside, with liberty to the State to hold enquiry and thereafter pass appropriate order, if so desires. ¶¶31

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the promotion granted to the petitioner by order dated 16.01.2012 could validly be cancelled by the order dated 07.04.2017 without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

¶¶3

Court's answer

As the petitioner continuously worked on the promotional post for almost five years after the right was conferred by order dated 16.01.2012, certain civil rights were created in his favour, and in order to dispense with the benefit of promotion an opportunity of hearing should have been given.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the opportunity of hearing was admittedly not given before the cancellation order of promotion was passed, the order of cancellation dated 07.04.2017 cannot be allowed to sustain and is set aside.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The State would be at liberty to hold an enquiry and thereafter pass appropriate order, if it so desires.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR — WPS No. 699 of 2016 & WPS No. 2156 of 2017 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, 02/08/2024): The petitioner, promoted to Assistant Grade-II by order dated 16.01.2012, challenged non-placement in the proper gradation list (W.P. No.669/2016), whereupon his promotion was cancelled by order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) without any opportunity of hearing, prompting W.P.No.2156/2017. Per counsel, he had been protected by interim order dated 15.05.2017 and had continuously worked on the promotional post for almost five years. Holding that certain civil rights had accrued in his favour and that the benefit of promotion could not be dispensed with without an opportunity of hearing, the Court found the cancellation order unsustainable, set it aside, and disposed of both petitions with liberty to the State to hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders, if so desires.

2024:CGHC:28896

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 699 of 2016

¶6

Munna Lal Tandey S/o Late Shri Gangaram Tandey, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent Local Election Collectorate Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund Civil and Revenue Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶9

Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Secretary Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur, D K S Bhawan Near Old Mantralaya Raipur, Civil and Revenue Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶11

Collector and District Election Officer Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶12

A Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE ANNAJEERAO RAODate: 2024.08.0610:22:37 +0530 WPS No. 2156 of 2017

¶13

Munna Lal Tandey S/o Late Shri Gangaram Tandey, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Assistant Superintendent Local Election Collectorate Mahasamund, P. S. Mahasamund Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Under Secretary, Revenue and Deserter Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Raipur, D K S Bhawan Near Old Mantralaya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,

¶18

Collector and District Election Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶19

For Petitioners	: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate

¶20

¶21

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri)

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

02/08/2024

¶24

Both the cases are being heard together as the common thread passes through the issue.

¶25

According to the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II by order dated 16.01.2012 and since his name was not properly placed in gradation list, he filed the instant petition bearing W.P. No.669/2016 to place his name in proper gradation list. When the writ petition was filed, notices were issued on 11.3.2016. Notice having been issued, the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled by subsequent order dated 07^th April, 2017 (Annexure P-1) for which W.P.No.2156/2017 was filed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was protected by interim order dated 15.05.2017 and was continuously working on the promotional post and before such cancellation order of promotion was issued on 07.04.2017, no opportunity of hearing was given, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside for want of proper opportunity of hearing and the rules of Audi Alteram Partem was by-passed.

¶27

Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of the petitioner. He submits that return has been filed by the State and para 7 of the return would show that the State came out with a stand that opportunity of hearing in this matter would be a futile effort, therefore, without giving any opportunity of hearing, promotional order dated 16.01.2012 was cancelled as it is not in accordance with law.

¶28

Be that at it may, when the right was conferred by order dated 16.01.2012 and he was continuously working on promotional post almost for 5 years, certain civil rights were created in his favour and in order to dispense with benefit of promotion, opportunity of hearing should have been given. Admittedly, the opportunity was not given before cancellation order of

¶29

¶30

promotion was passed. Therefore, under the circumstances, the order of cancellation dated 07.04.2017 cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. However, the State would be at liberty to hold enquiry and thereafter may pass appropriate order, if so desires.

¶31

With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed off.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(GOUTAM BHADURI) JUDGE

¶34

Rao

Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Tandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Resham Lal Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nishamunni Nagwanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mailprakash Toppo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh