Chandra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs Divisional Forest Officer

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010470872025 2026:CGHC:30149-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

INDRAJEET SAHU

¶5

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.2317:59:32 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 943 of 2025

¶7

1 - Chandra Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Ishwar Vishwakarma Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 436, Ward No. 16, BNC Mil Chal, Upjail Ke Piche, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Divisional Forest Officer Samanya Vanmandal (Purv) Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit (Purv) Bhanupratappur Through Prabandh Sanchalak District Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Rashtriya Tendupatta Majdoor Sangh Through Adhyaksh Shram Shivir Baldevbag, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Peethasin Adhikari Labour Court, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WA No. 946 of 2025

¶16

1 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Ram Lal Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o House No. 1372, Ward No. 38, Shiv Nagar, Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Appellant(s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

1 - Divisional Forest Officer Samanya Vanmandal (Purv) Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

2 - Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit (Purv) Bhanupratappur Through Prabandh Sanchalak, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶21

3 - Rashtriya Teudupatta Majdoor Sangh Through Adhyakash Shram Shivir Baldevbag, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

4 - Peethasin Adhikari Labour Court, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

WA No. 949 of 2025

¶25

1 - Khelan Singh Bhardwaj S/o Shankar Singh Bharadwaj Aged About 60 Years R/o- House No. 1306, Ward No. 38, Shiv Nagar, Basantpur, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶26

--- Appellant(s)

¶27

Versus

¶28

1 - Divisional Forest Officer Samanya Vanmandal (Purv) Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶29

2 - Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit (Purv) Bhanupratappur Through Prabandh Sanchalak District Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶30

2

¶31

3 - Rashtriya Tendupatta Majdoor Sangh Through Adhyaksh Shram Shivir Baldevbag, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶32

4 - Peethasin Adhikari Labour Court, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶33

--- Respondent(s)

¶34

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶35

For Appellants : Shri Shrestha Gupta, Advocate. For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Mazid Ali, Advocate.

¶36

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ

¶37

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶38

Judgment on Board

¶39

16.07.2026

¶40

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

¶41

1. Since common facts and issues are involved in all these writ appeals, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

¶42

2. These three writ appeals have been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in three different writ petitions filed by the appellants herein i.e. WP Nos.2086/2001, 2091/2001 and 2092/2001 respectively, and to comply with the order/award passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in the light of order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 19104 of 2023 and 21862 of 2024 in cases of similarly situated person i.e. Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif. For the sake of convenience, the details of Writ Appeals are as under-

¶43

Writ Appeal	Arose out of-
WA No.943 of 2025	Writ Petition No.2086 of 2001
WA No.946 of 2025	Writ Petition No.2091 of 2001
WA No.949 of 2025	Writ Petition No.2092 of 2001

¶44

3

¶45

3. In all these three writ appeals, application for leave to file writ appeal (IA No.01/2025) have been filed by the respective appellants. Since in the writ petitions, the present appellants were not individually the parties and Rashtriya Tendupatta Majdoor Sangh (in short, the Union) was the party respondent and the writ petitions were disposed of on the ground that some of the members of the respondent Union were reinstated on the post of Godown Keeper with backwages, however, the respondent Union made statement that they will not claim for backwages in future, therefore, the present writ appellants have filed their writ appeals for which leave to file writ appeal is required.

¶46

4. In all these appeals the challenge is to the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions and therefore in all these appeals applications for condonation of delay (IA No.02 of 2025) have also been filed by the respective appellants. Writ Appeal No.943 of 2025 is barred by 5101 days whereas Writ Appeal Nos. 946 and 949 of 2025 are barred by 5103 days.

¶47

5. To decide the application (IA No.01 of 2025) for grant of leave to file appeal, IA No.02 of 2025 for condonation of delay and also for deciding the appeals, the facts of the case are that, the appellants herein were working as daily wage employee on the post of Godown Keeper under Divisional Forest Officer, General forest Division, Bhanupratappur prior to 01.01.1997. The respondent No.3 Rashtriya Tendupatta Mazdoor Sangh moved an application before

¶48

4

¶49

the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh seeding permanent classification of petitioners and other similarly situated employees and to provide them all benefits. The Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the Industrial Dispute to Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. The Labour Court registered the reference and award was passed on 23.03.2001 directing the respondent No.1-Divisional Forest Officer to provide all benefits to the appellants herein treating them as permanent employee on the post of Godown Keeper (Class-III) w.e.f. 15.04.1999. Aggrieved by the said award of Labour Court, Rajnandgaon dated 23.03.2001, the Respondents No.1&2 herein preferred the aforementioned three writ petitions i.e. 2086/2001, 2091/2001 and 2092/2001 before this court without impleading the appellants herein in whose favour the Labour Court had passed the award. That, during pendency of writ petitions filed by the State, the appellants were appointed on the post of Messenger (Class-IV Post) on 22.09.2008 for a probation period of one year by State Small Produce (Trade and Development) Co-operative Union, Raipur which is a Co-operative Institution. The aforesaid writ petitions filed by the Respondents-State were disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.09.2011 holding that subsequent to filing of writ petitions, the members of Union (including appellants herein) have already been regularized on the post of Messenger on 22.09.2008 and therefore nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petitions. The Single Judge did not discuss the award passed by the Labour Court whereby appellants herein were directed to be treated as permanent employee on the post of Godown Keeper

¶50

5

¶51

which is a Class-III post whereas, the post of Messenger is a ClassIV post.

¶52

6. One of the member of the respondent Union (Israr Ahmad Khan) challenged the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.2041 of 2001 before this court in Writ Appeal No.339 of 2022. The Writ Appeal filed by Israr Ahmad was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.04.2023, although the delay of 3161 days in filing the appeal was condoned. Vide SLP(C)No.19104 of 2023, Israr Ahmad Khan approached the Hon. Supreme Court against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in WA No. 339 of 2022. Subsequently, another employee Mohd. Hanif also filed Writ Appeal No.353 of 2024 before this court which was also decided on 21.06.2024 in the light of decision taken in WA No.339 of 2022 and he too approached before the Hon. Supreme Court by filing his SLP(C)No.21862 of 2024. Both these SLPs filed by Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif came up for hearing before the Hon. Supreme Court on 20.05.2025 whereby both the SLPs were allowed to the extent that the award dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, was upheld and the benefit for which the appellants were entitled under the said award, were ordered to be conferred to them within three months from the date of passing of order by the Hon. Supreme Court. Thereafter the said employees Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.5 & 6 of 2026 before the Supreme Court which was also decided on 24.02.2026 in favour of the contempt petitioners. Review Petition (C)No.9499-9500/2026 filed by the respondent No.2 also stood

¶53

6

¶54

dismissed on 21.04.2026. After passing of the order dated 20.05.2025 by the Supreme Court, the present three writ appeals have been filed by the respective appellants.

¶55

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that appointment of the appellants on the post of Messenger is not in accordance with the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour court directed the appellants to be regularized on the post of Godown Keeper w.e.f. 15.04.1997 and not on the post of Messenger. Godown Keeper is a Class-III post whereas, Messenger is a Class-IV post. Thus, learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23.03.2001 in its true perspective and in mechanical manner have disposed of the writ petitions on 26.09.2011, that too without directing the affecting parties to be impleaded in the petition first. As the learned Single Judge decided the petitions without impleading the appellants herein as party respondents, they were not in knowledge about pending litigation and therefore delay occurred in filing these appeals may be condoned and consequently they be granted leave to file appeals.

¶56

Leaned counsel for the appellants would further submit that one of similarly situated employee namely Mohd. Hanif filed a Writ Appeal before this court being Writ Appeal No.353 of 2024 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on 21.06.2024 holding that appellant Mohd. Hanif was not a party in the writ petition, nor before the Labour Court. Against the said order of Division Bench, the said employee preferred SLP before the

¶57

7

¶58

Supreme Court vide SLP(C)No.21862 of 2024. The said SLP was allowed by the Supreme Court on 20.05.2025 whereby upholding the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Labour Court, it was ordered that for whatever benefits the appellants are entitled to under the award of Labour Court, shall be conferred to them within a period of three months. One of the member of the respondent Union (Israr Ahmad Khan) challenged the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.2041 of 2001 before this court in Writ Appeal No.339 of 2022. The Writ Appeal filed by Israr Ahmad was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.04.2023, although the delay of 3161 days in filing the appeal was condoned. Vide SLP(C)No.19104 of 2023, Israr Ahmad Khan approached the Supreme Court against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in WA No. 339 of 2022. Subsequently, another employee Mohd. Hanif also filed Writ Appeal No.353 of 2024 before this court which was also decided on 21.06.2024 in the light of decision taken in WA No.339 of 2022 and he too approached before the Supreme Court by filing his SLP(C)No.21862 of 2024. Both these SLPs filed by Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 20.05.2025 whereby both the SLPs were allowed to the extent that the award dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, was upheld and the benefit for which the appellants were entitled under the said award, were ordered to be conferred to them within three months from the date of passing of order by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the said employees Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.5 &

¶59

8

¶60

6 of 2026 before the Supreme Court which has been decided on 24.02.2026 in favour of the contempt petitioners. Review Petition (C)No.9499-9500/2026 filed by the respondent No.2 also stood dismissed on 21.04.2026 and thus, the order of Supreme Court, upholding the order of Labour Court, stands affirmed and the appellants are entitled to be treated as permanent employee on the post of Godown Keeper from 1997 itself.

¶61

He would further submit that the case of appellants herein are squarely covered with the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.21862 of 2024 (Mohd. Hanif Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Samanya Vanmandal (Purv) Bhanupratappur & Others), therefore the benefit flowing from the said order be also provided to the appellants herein by allowing their writ appeals. Therefore, leave to appeal may be granted in their favour, delay may be condoned and their writ appeals may be allowed.

¶62

8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and would submit that the writ appeals are hopelessly barred by limitation and it is filed only after the order passed by the Supreme Court. From 2011 till 2024-2025 these writ appellants have not claimed their right and thus there is no sufficient explanation for delay in filing the appeals and the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶63

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the writ appellants and have submitted that

¶64

9

¶65

the writ appellants are seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of more than about 14 years and there is no explanation for the same. The present writ appellants were provided employment on the post of Messenger in the year, 2008 and the writ petitions filed by the Respondent-Union was disposed of in the year 2011. In the writ petitions filed by the State, the respondent-Union were the respondent and in that writ petitions the present writ appellants were already provided employment and thus they were very well aware about pendency of writ petitions and the order passed by Single Judge on 26.09.2011. They accepted their employment on the post of Messenger which is a Class-IV post and remained silent in between that period. It is only when some of the employee Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif approached this court by filing writ appeals and ultimately approached the Supreme Court in which they got relief, the present writ appellants awoke and they have also filed their writ appeals. The passive conduct of the writ appellants disentitle them from the relief though their claims are similar. The explanation about lack of knowledge of the litigation is not sufficient to consider it proper explanation for such a long delay and the writ appeals suffer from lack of diligence and vigilance on the part of respective appellants. The condonation of delay are to be examined independently and the present appellants cannot claim parity for the same. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of T.Gnanavel Vs. R.Sasipriya and Others, 2026 Livelaw SC 457 and would submit that the present writ appellants are fence sitters and cannot be permitted to

¶66

10

¶67

raise dispute after the matter has concluded. Relying upon the judgments in Shoeline Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax & Others, 2017(16)SCC 104 he would further submit that in these cases the ratio of law laid down in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Another Vs. Jaswant Singh & Another, 2006(11)SCC 464 has been considered and declined to grant relief against stale claims. On all these grounds, he opposes the submissions made by the counsel for appellants and prayed for dismissal of all these writ appeals by rejecting the applications i.e. IA Nos. 1&2 of 2025.

¶68

10. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with in the writ appeals.

¶69

11. Since the Coordinate Bench of this court had already condoned delay of 4558 days in filing the writ appeal by the appellant Mohd. Hanif (Writ Appeal No.353 of 2024) and the said finding of condonation of delay has not been upset by the Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos.19104 of 2023 and 21862 of 2024 by its order dated 20.05.2025, the Review Petition filed by the respondent No.2 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21.04.2026 and further that the claim as well as the issues involved in these writ appeals are identical to the claim and issues involved in Writ Appeal Nos.339/2022 and 353/2024, we are inclined to condone delay of 5101 and 5103 days in filing appeals and to grant leave to present appellants to file writ appeals against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed in their respective writ petitions i.e. WP Nos.2086/2001, 2091/2001 and 2092/2001. Accordingly IA No.02 of 2025,

¶70

11

¶71

application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeals in all these writ appeals are allowed and the respective writ appellants are granted leave to file writ appeals. Consequently, IA Nos. 2&1 of 2025 in all these writ appeals are allowed.

¶72

12. With respect to claim of writ appellants in these writ appeals are concerned, the Hon. Supreme Court has already upheld the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, dated 23.03.2001 and held that the writ appellants (Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif) are entitled to under the said award, shall be conferred to them within a period of three months from the date of order. Therefore, as we have already considered that the present writ appellants are also claiming their entitlement being the member of Respondent No.2Union and similarly situated employees have already been granted relief by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to take another view what has been taken by the Hon. Supreme Court in case of Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif.

¶73

13. It is relevant here to take note of relevant part of the order passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos.19104 and 21862 of 2024 which is as under:

¶74

“Having considered the matters, we find that the order(s) of the High Court cannot take away the rights of the appellants in their personal capacity just because a stand has been taken by the Union. Moreover, the High Court has not interfered or set aside the award.

¶75

Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed to the extent that the award dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court is upheld and for whatever benefits the appellants are entitled to under the said award, shall be conferred to them, within a period of three months from today.”

¶76

14. The respondents could not demonstrate that the case of present

¶77

writ appellants are distinguishable to the facts and claim of those

¶78

12

¶79

employees (Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif) who have been granted relief by the Hon. Supreme Court in the same set of facts and under the same order dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, and therefore, these writ appellants are also entitled for the same relief as has been granted to Ishar Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif by the Hon. Supreme Court in their SLPs.

¶80

15. Since the Hon. Supreme Court has already considered the cases of similarly situated employees namely Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif, the rights of present writ appellants cannot be denied in view of ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of T. Gnanavel (Supra) and Shouline (Supra), accordingly, we allow all these writ appeals and the respondents are directed to grant benefit to the present writ appellants also pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, dated 23.03.2001 as has been granted to Israr Ahmad Khan and Mohd. Hanif.

¶81

16. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants at bar that appellant Khelan Singh Bhardwaj (in Writ Appeal No.949 of 2025) has been superannuated on 30.06.2026 and Ashok Kumar Gupta (in Writ Appeal No.946 of 2025) is superannuated on 30.01.2023. Since we have already upheld the entitlement of the writ appellants in view of the order dated 23.03.2001 passed by Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, they are entitled for consequential benefits uptill their date of superannuation.

¶82

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

¶83

inder

Chandra Kumar Vishwakarma v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kumar Vishwakarma v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dutiya Pradhan Vs Smt. Kanti Chauhan

Baisakhiya Bai Vs Ramin Bai Mathur

Chief Engineer, Vs Itwari

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankajmani Vs Prafull Kumar

Ajay Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh