Ganga Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Additional Commissioner Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3. Additional Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶14

...Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.

¶17

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHANMORLE BRIJMOHANMORLEDate: 2026.07.15 10:37:40 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

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

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

14.07.2026

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

¶24

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1578 of 2019 ( Ganga Ram Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide order dated 03.05.1995 passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Bilaspur, and after joining, he continuously discharged his duties. However, the respondent No.4 illegally removed him from service without following the prescribed procedure governing removal of a Panchayat Secretary. Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3, which came to be dismissed in Revenue Case No.27/A-89(9)/2013-14 vide order dated 17.06.2015. Prior thereto, the appellant had approached this Hon'ble Court by filing WPS No.4972/2011, which was disposed of on 07.07.2014 granting liberty to

¶26

3

¶27

avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision before the respondent No.2, and the respondent No.2, vide order dated 20.10.2016, allowed the revision by setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶28

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2016, the appellant submitted his joining before the respondent No.4 on 26.10.2016, but despite the revisional authority having set aside the dismissal order, he was not permitted to resume duties. The appellant thereafter submitted representations on 28.03.2017 and 05.09.2017, yet no action was taken by the authorities. He further contended that the appellant was constrained to file WPS No.264/2018, wherein this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 10.01.2018, directed the respondent No.4 to allow the appellant to join on the post of Panchayat Secretary. Even thereafter, when the appellant approached the respondent No.4 to join, he was not permitted to do so in spite of the specific direction issued by this Hon'ble Court.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that due to noncompliance of the order dated 10.01.2018, the appellant initiated Contempt Case No.323/2018, wherein by order dated 18.04.2018, this Hon'ble Court directed the appellant to submit an additional representation and directed the respondent No.4 to consider the same in compliance with the earlier order. Subsequently, Contempt Case No.733/2018 was disposed of on 03.08.2018, granting liberty to the

¶30

4

¶31

appellant to challenge the orders dated 24.01.2018 and 21.06.2018. he further submits that despite the revisional authority having set aside the dismissal order and despite subsequent directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the respondent No.4 failed to permit the appellant to resume duties. Even the respondent No.2, vide order dated 02.08.2017, directed compliance of the revisional order dated 20.10.2016, but the same was not implemented. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the earlier orders passed by the competent authorities as well as this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be allowed to join on the post of Panchayat Secretary either in Gram Panchayat Kosma or at any other vacant Gram Panchayat in accordance with law.

¶32

6. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts as well as the material available on record and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. It is submitted that no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present writ appeal. It is further submitted that the competent authority has rightly held that the appellant was never regularly appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary and, therefore, no right of reinstatement or joining could be claimed by him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record.

¶34

5

¶35

8. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the competent authority, while passing the order dated 24.01.2018, has specifically recorded a finding that the appellant was only entrusted with the additional charge of Panchayat Secretary and upon appointment of a regular Panchayat Secretary, the said charge was withdrawn. The record further reveals that although the revisional authority had set aside the earlier orders, learned Single Judge in WPS No.264/2018, vide order dated 10.01.2018, had only directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli to consider permitting the appellant to join if there was no other legal impediment. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority examined the matter and recorded a categorical finding that the appellant had never been regularly appointed to the post of Panchayat Secretary and, therefore, he could not be permitted to join on the said post. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire factual and legal position, found no infirmity in the decision of the competent authority.

¶36

9. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter. The findings recorded by the competent authority, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are based on the material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. The appellant has failed to point out any error of fact or law in the impugned order so as to persuade this Court to take a different view.

¶37

6

¶38

10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the

¶39

same is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶41

Brijmohan

Ganga Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram Sahu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shambhunath Dubey Vs Chaitram Yadav

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gautam Bhardwaj

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Raghunath

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vs Sumita

Vivek Kurre @ Poklin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh