Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12284-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 177 of 2025

¶5

1 - Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Through The General Manager, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3 - The Chairman Institute Of Hotel Management, Gram Uparwara, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5 - Mr. Sanjay Singh General Manager, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Tourism, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - The Managing Director M.P. Tourism Development Corporation, Paryatan Bhawan, Bhadbhada Road, Bhopal, District Bhopal Madhya Pradesh.

¶14

3 - Madan Gopal Shrivastava (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23/08/2023 .

¶15

3.1 - A. Smt. Usha Shrivastava W/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o Q - 23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶17

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.12 18:22:23 +0530

¶18

3.2 - B. Miss Radhika Shrivastava D/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years R/o Q - 23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3.3 - C. Shri Shantanu Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 36 Years R/o Q - 23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶20

--- Respondent(s)

¶21

2

¶22

WA No. 149 of 2025

¶23

State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Tourism, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶24

--- Appellant

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - Madan Gopal Shrivastava (Died) Through Legal Heirs- As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23-08-2023 (Petitioners)

¶27

1.1 - (A) Smt. Usha Shrivastava W/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o- Q-23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

1.2 - (B) Miss Radhika Shrivastava D/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years R/o- Q-23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

1.3 - (C) Shri Shantanu Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Madan Gopal Shrivastava Aged About 36 Years R/o- Q-23, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)

¶30

2 - Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Through The General Manager, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶31

3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶32

4 - The Chairman Institute of Hotel Management, Gram Uparwara, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶33

5 - The Managing Director M.P. Tourism Development Corporation, Paryatan Bhawan, Bhadbhada Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, District- Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

¶34

6 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1 Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶35

7 - Mr. Sanjay Singh General Manager, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Udyog Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Respondent(s)

¶37

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶38

For Appellants in WA No.177/ : Mr. Anup Majumdar, 2025 and for respondent Nos. 2, Advocate 3, 4, 6 & 7 in WA No. 149/2025

¶39

For State/Appellant in WA No. 149/2025 and respondent No.1/ State in WA No. 177/2025

¶40

: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General

¶41

3

¶42

For Respondent Nos. 3.1 to 3.3 in : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and WA No. 177/2025 and for Mr. K. Rohan, Advocates respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 in WA No. 149/2025

¶43

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

¶44

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12. 03.2025

¶45

Since both these appeals arise out of common impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 328 of 2016 and WP(S) No. 2518 of 2016, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶46

Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.177/2025 and for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 in WA No. 149/2025 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellant in WA No. 149/2025 and respondent No.1/ State in WA No. 177/2025. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 3.1 to 3.3 in WA No. 177/2025 and for respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 in WA No. 149/2025.

¶47

I.A. No. 02 of 2025, is an application for condonation of delay of 145 days in filing WA No. 177 of 2025 and I.A. No. 02 of 2025, is

¶48

4

¶49

an application for condonation of delay of 150 days in filing WA No. 149 of 2025.

¶50

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid applications, both the applications are allowed. Delay in filing the appeals are hereby condoned.

¶51

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are heard finally.

¶52

The present writ appeals are directed against common impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 328 of 2016 and WP(S) No. 2518 of 2016, whereby both the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner were allowed and respondents therein were directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners within a period of 90 days along with interest @ 6% per annum. The respondent authorities were also directed to release the amount of retiral dues to the petitioners within a period of 90 days.

¶53

The facts of the case are that the original petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Accountant in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh under Madhya Pradesh Tourism Corporation in 1980. He was promoted to Manager (Accounts) vide order dated 01.06.1990. On 01.05.1994, he was promoted to Class-II post i.e. Senior Manager (Accounts) and the said post was re-designated as Accounts Officer with effect from 01.01.1996. Vide notification dated 18.01.2002, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board was constituted.

¶54

5

¶55

The services of the original petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 03.09.2004 and after that, his services were absorbed in the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board on 05.11.2004 and he was given a pay-scale of Rs.8,000-27513,500/- vide order dated 27.11.2004. On 04.10.2005, he was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager on the payscale of Rs.12,000-375-16,500/-. The original petitioner was holding additional charge of Deputy Secretary, Tourist Department and a specific order was issued in this regard on 21.02.2007. He was appointed as Principal of the Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, Raipur on 21.02.2007. The Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2007 came into force with effect from 18.01.2002. The State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 26.07.2013 permitted and approved the disbursement of the salary of the original petitioner for the post of Principal. The age of retirement on account of superannuation was extended from 60 to 62 years by the State of Chhattisgarh vide notification dated 23.08.2013 which came into force with effect from 31.08.2013. On 26.08.2013, a decision was taken to extend the benefit of notification dated 23.08.2013 to all Corporations/ Boards/ Government Undertakings/ Panchayats and Civic Bodies. The salary of the original petitioner was revised on the pay scale of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000/- + grade pay Rs.8,700/- issued by the Chhattisgarh State Government. Vide order dated

¶56

6

¶57

22.01.2014, the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board completely transferred the services of the original petitioner to the Institute of Hotel Management, Raipur. The petitioner was granted additional charge of the Department of Endowments & Religious Trusts on 26.06.2014. The petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 30.06.2014. Though the decision was taken by the State Government to extend the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, the amendment was not inserted in the Rules of Chhattisgarh Tourism Board. Despite the petitioner having attained the age of 60 years which was the age of superannuation at that relevant time, he was permitted to continue on the post of Principal of the Institute vide order dated 30.06.2014 by the State Government. On 02.03.2015, an order was issued by the department informing the original petitioner that he retired from services on account of superannuation with effect from 30.06.2014 after completion of 60 years. Order dated 02.03.2015 was challenged by filing WP(S) No. 984 of 2015 before this Court. Under Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture, Government of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 30.07.2015 cancelled the order dated 02.03.2015 and the original petitioner was again permitted to continue on the post of Principal of the Institution. The salary was directed to be released forthwith vide order dated 30.07.2015 issued by Under Secretary, Department of Tourism and Culture, Government of Chhattisgarh. The original petitioner joined the services on 30.07.2015. On

¶58

7

¶59

09.08.2015, the Department of Tourism, Government of Chhattisgarh extended the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and WP(S) No. 984 of 2015 was withdrawn. The order dated 30.07.2015 was cancelled by the State Government on 23.12.2015 and thereafter, an order of recovery was issued on 07.01.2016 on the ground that the original petitioner was not entitled to hold the post of Principal as he retired from services on 30.06.2014.

¶60

Being aggrieved by the same, the original petitioner has filed two separate writ petitions i.e. 328 of 2016 and 2518 of 2016 before this Court.

¶61

In WP(S) No. 328 of 2016, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶62

“10.1 That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, the orders Annexure P/28 and P/29 may please be quashed entirely.

¶63

10.2 That, in view of the order of the State Government canceling the pre-mature retirement of the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding all the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Principal of the Institute of Hotel Management or as Dy. General Manager of the Board.

¶64

10.3 That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to command the respondent no.7 not to come in the way of functioning of the petitioner in accordance

¶65

8

¶66

with the orders issued by the State Government canceling his pre-mature retirement.

¶67

10.4 That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to command the respondents to allow the petitioner to work up to the age of 62 years, i.e. up to end of June, 2016 without any hindrance and that the petitioner be paid his entire salary from 2014 onwards with 18% interest for the amount not paid till the same is paid.

¶68

10.5 Any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued together with awarding cost of these proceedings.”

¶69

Whereas, in WP(S) No. 2518 of 2016 the following reliefs were sought by the original petitioner:-

¶70

“i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

¶71

ii. To kindly quash the impugned order vide no. 415/427/2016/33/Parya. Dated 09/06/2016 issued by the respondent no. 1. (Annexure P/1).

¶72

iii. To kindly quash the Order vide no. 5883/ 1/ Stha/Prasha/ Parya/15 dated 02/03/2015 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no.4 Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board with full consequential reliefs.

¶73

iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶74

9

¶75

Both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.08.2024 and respondents therein were directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners within a period of 90 days along with interest @ 6% per annum. The respondent authorities were also directed to release the amount of retiral dues to the petitioners within a period of 90 days.

¶76

Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeals have been filed by the respective appellants.

¶77

Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No. 177 of 2025 vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant case is the case of misrepresentation by the then public servant, who himself sanctioned and released his raised salary from the post in which he was given the additional charges. He submitted that the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 is not applicable for two reasons; the first one is that the deceased public servant was brought under purview of recovery because he unwarrantedly released the raised unsanctioned salary and second reason is that he was not posted as Class III or Class IV employees rather he was posted as Principal of Institute of Hotel Management. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not considered the fact that the deceased public servant retired on

¶78

10

¶79

30.06.2014, vide order dated 02.03.2015, as the extension of age of superannuation from age of 60 years to age of 62 years was not approved by the appropriate authority. The extension in age of retirement was also not published in any official gazette because of which the benefit of extension in age was not implemented. He contended that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that it was submitted by State that though the petitioner was permitted to continue on the services, the salary was not revised and the salary which was being drawn by the original petitioner was never sanctioned by the State Government. It is also submitted that the original petitioner himself exercised the power of drawing and disbursing of salary and issued an order dated 28.09.2013. State government further contended that the original petitioner himself sanctioned the disbursement and withdrew his salary. He further contended that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that even in the order dated 28.09.2013 a specific date is not mentioned. The substantive post of the original petitioner was Deputy Manager and his salary was Rs.30,360 /- + grade pay of Rs.7,600/whereas, he was drawing a salary of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with a grade pay Rs.8,700/-. The salary of the original petitioner was revised by himself vide order dated 28.09.2013 and that is the reason for the issuance of the order of recovery. There is an allegation of financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 16,59,395/against the original petitioner.

¶80

11

¶81

Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellant in WA No. 149 of 2025 submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that writ petition filed by the original petitioner bearing WPS no. 984 of 2015 was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to make representation before the State Government to redress his grievances if not redressed, thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation seeking release of salary from month of April 2014 onwards accordingly the representation of the petitioner was considered and vide order dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure-P/29), the same was rejected with the observation that the petitioner has been retired on 02.03.2015 and as such he would only be due still 02.03.2015 and the financial irregularities committed by him as incharge of the Principal of the Hotel Management Institute would be recovered from the said dues. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that the order dated 23.12.2015 in which the order of recovery has been passed was not a recovery simplicitor whereas the allegations has been made against the petitioner that he has committed the financial irregularities which may cause the financial harm to the Corporation therefore the amount is required to be recovered from the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the Learned Single Judge has not discussed this clause in his order that there is a allegation of financial irregularities on the petitioner and which required enquiry therefore the liberty must be reserved in

¶82

12

¶83

the favour of the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry if required against the petitioner to find out the financial irregularities. Moreover, the petitioner originally belonged from Chhattisgarh Tourism Board but, the petitioner has further pleaded that he was working as a Principal, in a Hotel Management Institute by the virtue of the order 30.07.2015 issued by the then Deputy Secretary, but after the perusal it was found that the order dated 30.07.2015 was not approved by the Principal Secretary. Thus, the order dated 30.07.2015 is not in accordance with law the petitioner was not legally working on the post of Principal. The petitioner's services has not been absorbed by the State Government and the petitioner was originally retired from his original department from the order dated 02.03.2015 than it is not permissible that he should work with the State Government on a post of Principal, Hotel Management Institute after his retirement. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated that the order dated 30.07.2015 is without jurisdictional order therefore, it is settled principle of law that the order dated which has been passed without jurisdiction is void ab-initio and no right has been created on the basis of the same.

¶84

On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondents in both the appeals opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petitions, in which no

¶85

13

¶86

interference is called for. He further submitted so far as allegation of financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 16,59,395/against the original petitioner is concerned, the said amount has been sanction by the State Government itself vide order dated 26.07.2023 and the salary of the original petitioner was revised pursuant to approval granted by the State Government dated 28.09.2013 and the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has taken into consideration the said fact.

¶87

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

¶88

It is evident that during pendency of the writ petitions, the original petition had expired on 05.08.2023 and his legal representatives were substituted.

¶89

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the extent of liability for legal heirs fulfilling the obligations of a deceased sole proprietor under a development agreement. In Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) v. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others [Civil Appeal Nos. 7768-7769 of 2023], the Court clarified that while legal heirs are responsible for monetary obligations from the deceased's estate, they are not personally liable for obligations specific to the deceased's skills or expertise.

¶90

From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the original petitioner was offered the

¶91

14

¶92

post of Principal in the Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, Raipur vide order dated 21.02.2007. He was conferred with drawing and disbursing power by the State Government of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 26.07.2013 and the salary of the original petitioner was revised pursuant to approval granted by the State Government dated 28.09.2013 and till the date of retirement of original petitioner dated 30.06.2014, no objection was raised by the authorities with regard to salary drawn by the original petitioner. The original petitioner was permitted to continue in the post of Principal of the Institute till the passing of the order dated 23.12.2015. It is also observed in the order impugned that the original petitioner would be entitled to receive salary till 02.03.2015 whereby the order of continuation was recalled. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were continued even after the date of retirement and he worked there in the post of Principal till 23.12.2015. It is also evident from the documents that after March 2014, the respondents have not paid salary to the original petitioner till 23.12.2015.

¶93

Considering the fact that the original petitioner has died and recovery is proposed to be made from the legal heirs of the original petitioner and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) (supra), also considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by

¶94

15

¶95

the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners / private respondents herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶96

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

¶97

Sd/- Sd/-

¶98

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

¶99

Chandra

Chhattisgarh Tourism Board v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhattisgarh Tourism Board 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asim Das Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Shivani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nandini Mandelkar Vs Director of Public Instruction

Nakul Kaivartya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh