Sandeep Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9503-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.25 17:56:14 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WA No. 138 of 2025

¶7

Sandeep Thakur S/o Late D.S. Thakur, presently aged 49 years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Deputy General Manager, C.G. Tourism Board, Presently R/o J.P. Heights Shubham Vihar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

¶15

No.1/State

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

25.02.2025

¶20

2

¶21

Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents/State on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶22

For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 01/2025 i.e. application for condonation for delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶23

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶24

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 1263/2016 (Sandeep Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶25

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant was appointed to the post of Nayab Tahsildar on 13.04.2000 and after completion of 05 years of service on the said post, he became entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 13.04.2005. In the meanwhile, the appellant was allowed to work as in-charge Tahsildar on 04.11.2010, but he was ultimately granted promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 27.04.2013. After his promotion, the appellant made representation before the State Government on 23.12.2015 for grant of promotion from

¶26

3

¶27

retrospective date, however, the said representation was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 22.02.2016 finding no merit. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed writ petition being WPS No.1263 of 2016, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.12.2024. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶28

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstance of the facts. Learned Single Judge failed to see that the appellant was appointed on the post of Nayab Tahsildar on 13.04.2000 and according to Rule 14 read with Schedule IV entry 1 of the Rules, 1980 the promotional post of Nayab Tahsildar is Tahsildar for which the eligibility criteria is 5 years of service as Nayab Tahsildar. He further submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that as per Rule 6(4) of the C.G. Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 the criteria for promotion to the post of Tahsildar is Seniority subject to Fitness when the department on account of administrative lapses could not convene the DPC the department could not reject the claim of the appellant. Learned Single Judge failed to see that the appellant cannot suffer owing to the administrative lapses on the part of the respondents for no fault on the part of the appellant. The action of the State is violative of the fundamental rights of the appellant guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the appellant cannot be

¶29

4

¶30

made to suffer on account of delay caused by the Authorities. He also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to see that, though the appellant was entitled for promotion in the year 2005 and even the posts were lying vacant, yet the respondents did not consider the appellant for promotion and delayed the process of convening DPC. The order passed by learned Single Judge is contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as the appellant was discharging the duties on the post of Tahsildar since 04.11.2010 and therefore, the appellant was entitled for seniority from 04.11.2010 on the post of Tahsildar. He contended that learned Single Judge failed to see that the department rejected the representation of the appellant on perverse ground without considering the relevant rules and the fact that the appellant has been deprived from promotion for five years on account of lapses on the part of the Department. On account of non-conferring seniority to the appellant with effect from the year 2008, the appellant is being deprived from next promotion to the post of Deputy Collector for which he is entitled from 2013 and if the DPC would have been convened in the year 2008 itself and the appellant would have been promoted, he would become eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the year 2013 itself. Learned Single Judge failed to see that the appellant cannot be made to suffer owing to administrative lapse, on the part of State for no fault on its part. He further contended that learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that in ordinary course the

¶31

5

¶32

appellant was entitled to be promoted to the post of Tahsildar in the year 2005, if the Departmental Promotion Committee had been constituted in due time and committed error in dismissing the writ petition. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, in which no interference is called for.

¶34

We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶35

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Nayab Tahsildar on 13.04.2000 and after completion of 05 years of service on the said post, he became due for consideration for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and against the nine vacancies, a total of 22 candidates were in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, however, the name of the petitioner was not there. Ultimately, seven persons were promoted to the post of

¶36

6

¶37

Tahsilar and as per the affidavit filed by the State on 29.03.2016, the case of Mr. Diley Ram Dahire and Ms. Silli Thomas were kept in closed envelope. Later on, Ms. Silli Thomas was granted promotion after completion of due formalities on 06.05.2008 and Mr. Diley Ram Dahire was granted promotion on 31.10.2012, and both were granted seniority from the date the other persons were promoted i.e. 24.01.2008. Furthermore, the petitioner’s contention that the names of Mr. Ashish Shrivastava and Ms. Garima Upadhyay were put in the zone of consideration for promotion, whereas they had already left the department, yet he kept silent about it earlier and did not question it in accordance with law and he made his first representation only on 23.12.2015, which was considered and rejected by the State Government finding no merit, vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2016. Moreover, the petitioner, in his representation has sought retrospective seniority stating that he ought to have been granted promotion from the retrospective date as no DPC was convened in between 13.04.2005 to 27.04.2013, whereas the post of Tahsildar was vacant. However, it is incorrect on the face of the records as in the year 2007, the DPC was convened against the nine vacant posts and promotions to the post of Tahsildar were granted. Now, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking retrospective seniority. Learned Single Judge further held that since the petitioner had borne in the cadre of Tahsildar only on 27.04.2013, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of retrospective seniority, in

¶38

7

¶39

view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, the petitioner accepted his promotion on 27.04.2013 without any demur and protest and, thereafter, made a detailed representation against the same for the first time only on 23.12.2015 i.e. after a delay of more than two years from the date of his promotion, as such, the representation was made by the petitioner for stale claim.

¶40

10.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the pleadings made in writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶42

Sd/- Sd/-

¶43

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶44

Bablu

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Arjun @ Payku Kunjam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anamika Dewangan (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Das @ Radhe Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (in Person) Vs Reserve Bank of India

Prabhakar Khobragadhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh