Gaukaran Singh Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - The Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh).

¶13

4 - District Education Officer, Lormi, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh).

¶14

5 - Block Education Officer, Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶16

7 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Singhanpuri, Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No.	:	Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer.
1 to 5/State
For Respondents No. 6	:	None though notice has been served
& 7

¶20

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

07/11/2025

¶23

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the concerned Respondents Authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Guruji in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.2 To direct the respondents to provide entire back wages from the date the petitioner became entitled for reinstatement.

¶26

10.3 To provide compensation and cost of the petition to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶27

10.4 To pass any other order/direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Guruji under the Shiksha Guarantee Yojna by the

¶29

3

¶30

respondent authorities vide appointment order dated 13.05.1998 and accordingly joined his duties, continuously performing his work diligently. However, the respondent No. 6, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, illegally terminated the petitioner’s services from the post of Guruji vide order dated 20.01.2000. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 857/2001 before the Hon’ble Court challenging the termination order dated 20.01.2000. The Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 02.01.2002, directed the petitioner to approach the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, by way of an appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, which was allowed vide order dated 12.06.2002, setting aside the termination order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Despite the order of reinstatement, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties, and instead, respondent No. 6 issued a letter dated 25.01.2003 to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Singhanpuri, directing him to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly submitted applications and representations to the respondent authorities seeking reinstatement, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2998/2022 before the Hon’ble Court seeking reinstatement, which was disposed of on 29.04.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the authorities by way of a suitable representation. In

¶31

4

¶32

compliance, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 12.05.2022. Thereafter, respondent No. 6, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, sent a proposal to respondent No. 4, District Education Officer, Mungeli, vide letter dated 02.06.2022, recommending the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher (Ex-EGS Guruji, EGS Kendra Manikpur), in compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s order. However, respondent No. 4 arbitrarily and illegally rejected the said proposal and returned the petitioner’s record to respondent No. 6 vide impugned order dated 23.06.2022. Hence, this petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly appointed as Guruji under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Singhanpuri, Lormi, vide order dated 13.05.1998, and he discharged his duties sincerely till the year 2000. However, on 21.01.2000, an order of removal was issued without assigning any cogent or plausible reason, merely stating that his appointment was not in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 857/2001, wherein the petition was disposed of on 02.01.2002 with liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SubDivisional Officer (SDO), Lormi, District Mungeli, who vide order dated 12.06.2002, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of removal, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in

¶34

5

¶35

accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, issued a notice dated 25.01.2003 to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Singhanpuri, seeking an explanation as to the circumstances under which the petitioner’s services were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly approached the concerned authorities and even this Hon’ble Court, contending that other similarly situated persons had already been reinstated in service, but no decision was taken in his case. Ultimately, vide order dated 01.06.2022, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, acknowledged that similarly situated persons had been reinstated as per directions of this Court and other authorities and recommended that the petitioner too be reinstated, noting that services under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme had since been amalgamated into the School Education Department. Accordingly, it was proposed that the petitioner be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the said department, and a communication to this effect was sent to the District Education Officer, Mungeli. However, the DEO, in his reply, stated that the matter pertained to the appointment of Shiksha Karmi and that no order could be passed by his office in that regard. Having been deprived of relief for over two decades despite favorable recommendations and having now attained the age of 46 years, the petitioner, who was duly appointed and has remained without employment through no

¶36

6

¶37

fault of his own, has been compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court once again seeking redressal of his long-standing grievance.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the contentions raised are devoid of merit and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and procedures, after following due process of law, and that there has been no violation of any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed being misconceived, baseless, and devoid of any substance.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶40

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the order of removal was passed against the petitioner without adherence to the principles of natural justice. Despite issuance of notice to the Gram Panchayat, no action was taken nor any reasoned order was passed in response. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, vide order dated 02.06.2022, has already recommended the appointment/reinstatement of the petitioner. The respondent authorities have already appointed

¶41

7

¶42

Gurujis in identical cases, namely, those of Shri Dinuram Ghoe, E.G.S. Guruji Navadih, and Shri Itwari Ram Yadav, E.G.S. Guruji Chandiyabhata, vide order dated 23.07.2009, on the basis of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 724/2001 and WP No. 1513/2003. It is, therefore, evident that in cases arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances, similarly situated employees have been reinstated by the respondents. Consequently, the arbitrary denial of appointment to the petitioner, despite being similarly placed, amounts to clear discrimination and is violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who has been diligently raising his grievance and is running from pillar to post since the year 2000, has unjustly remained out of service to date. Therefore, in view of the parity of circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to pass the necessary consequential orders within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶46

Judge

¶47

Raghu Jat

Gaukaran Singh Bhaskar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaukaran Singh Bhaskar 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

Anil Shrivastav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Amritbai Binjhvar

Mukesh Khatik Vs General Director, Central Industrial Security Force

Smt. Pampa Dutta Vs M/S Shabri Engineering Works