Rameshwar Prasad Bareth Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:2025.08.19 10:17:12 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41032

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2562 of 2017

¶7

Rameshwar Prasad Bareth S/o Pyari Lal Bareth, Aged About 47 Years Working As Process Server/ Jamadar In The Court Of District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Subhash Patel, Peon/process Server, District Court Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Mohan Patel, Peon/process Server, District Court Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Kartik Ram Rathiya, Peon/ Process Server, District Court Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Gadaram Rathiya, Peon/ Process Server, District Court Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
For Respondents No. 3 & 4	: Ms. Priya Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

14.08.2025

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶21

2

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash order dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P/1), so far it relates to petitioner showing him as peon.

¶24

10.3 That, the gradation list dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P/2) may kindly be corrected in the line of previous gradation list dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P/6) so far it relates to the petitioner.

¶25

10.4 That, order dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure P/3) may be quashed, so far it relates to the name of petitioner as peon at serial no. 14 and he may kindly be treated as process server serving since 06.04.2009.

¶26

10.5 That, an enquiry may be made relating to showing the name of respondent no. 3 & 4 as process server in the gradation list dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure P/3).

¶27

10.6 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of peon under respondent No. 2. He would further submit that vide order dated 23.04.1999, the services of the petitioner were sent to the Nazarat Department, Sarangarh, against the post of contingency paid employee (post of peon), and he joined there on 26.04.1999. He would also submit that the petitioner was promoted and posted to the post of Process Server vide order dated 06.04.2009, but in the gradation list, he has been shown as a peon. He would contend that in the gradation list dated 03.08.2016, the services of the petitioner have been reflected as Peon. He would further contend that thereafter the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh. He would further contend that the respondents may be directed to rectify the gradation list by mentioning his designation as ‘Process Server’ instead of

¶29

3

¶30

‘Peon’. He would also contend that the order dated 24.05.2017 may be quashed, whereby the services of the petitioner have been regularized against the sanctioned and vacant post of Peon, as the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 06.04.2009 on the post of Process Server.

¶31

Mr. Kumbhare would further argue that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner on the post of Process Server and make the payment of arrears of salary and other benefits attached to the post.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post of peon vide order dated 21.04.1999. They would further submit that the services of the petitioner were shifted from one Court to another Court as a time gap arrangement, but the services of the petitioner were never regularized against the post of Process Server. They would also submit that the orders dated 23.04.1999 and 06.04.2009 are only orders of posting and transfer. They would contend that the petitioner has not placed any document on record to establish that he was promoted to the post of Process Server at any point in time from 1999 till 2009. They would further contend that the services of the petitioner have been regularized on the post of Peon vide order dated 24.05.2017, and the petitioner has sought the relief to quash the said order. They would also contend that the instant petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon under respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.04.1999. The order dated 06.04.2009

¶35

4

¶36

would make it clear that the petitioner was posted and transferred to the post of Process Server as a temporary arrangement, and it is not an order of promotion to the post of Process Server. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not placed any documents to demonstrate that he was promoted to the post of process server between 21.04.1999 to 24.05.2017. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 24.05.2017 on the post of Peon, and the petitioner has challenged the said order without assigning reasons as to how the said order affects his service conditions.

¶37

Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶38

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

$iddhant

Rameshwar Prasad Bareth v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Prasad Bareth v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munni Lal Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Lalwani Vs Manisha Lalwani

Rajesh Golchha Vs Tahira Begum

Vijay Panda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagtu Vs (Deleted), Kana, Through Legal Heir

Smt Navita Shivhare Vs Smt. Sadhna Jaiswal