Ram Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - The Joint Director Directorate Of Public Relations, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Additional Director Directorate Of Public Relations Department Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Assistant Director District Public Relations Department, Divisional Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Smt. Nieelima Agrawal Presently Posted As Dy. Director, Office Of The District Public Relations Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (The Then Assistant Director In The Office Of Respondent No. 4)

¶15

7 - Shri Chumman Lal S/o Shri Abhay Ram Aged Not Known, R/o Village Parsada, Thana, Post And Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶19

2

¶20

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

29/01/2026

¶23

The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the possession of concerned respondent for its kind perusal, and set aside the impugned letter/communication dated 28.06.2021 (Annex. P-1) issued by Respondent No.2.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the concern Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages on the post of Driver (daily wages driver) at his earlier place of posting.

¶26

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.”

¶27

Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.08.2016 as a daily-wage Driver at the Collector rate in the District Public Relations Office, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, and continuously discharged his duties with sincerity, honesty, and without any complaint till his removal on 03.12.2020. His performance and engagement during the service period are evident from various Admit Cards/Access Passes issued to him for official duties such as Atal Vikas Yatra-2018 and Lok Sabha Election-2019, including the letter dated 22.05.2019 issued by

¶28

3

¶29

Respondent No. 4 for issuance of an election Admit Card. Despite rendering uninterrupted service for nearly four years, the petitioner was abruptly removed from service by Respondent No. 6 through an oral order on the ground of low budget, without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, while another person (Respondent No. 7) was appointed in his place on the same post and budget. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representations dated 03.12.2020 and a reminder received on 22.01.2021 seeking reinstatement, but no action was taken, compelling him to file Writ Petition No. WP(S) 1317/2021, which was disposed of on 05.04.2021 with a direction to consider his representation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again represented on 01.06.2021; however, his claim was rejected vide communication dated 28.06.2021 on the ground that no post of daily-wage driver was approved in the concerned office. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the RTI Act regarding the engagement of the present driver, but was initially furnished misleading and incomplete information, leading him to file first and second appeals, after which complete information was finally supplied on 22.07.2022. From the documents obtained under RTI and earlier representations, it is evident that the petitioner’s removal was arbitrary, malafide, and actuated by extraneous considerations, as Respondent No. 6 had been taking personal and peon-related work from the petitioner in addition to his official driving duties,

¶30

4

¶31

rendering the impugned action illegal, unjust, and liable to judicial interference.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of Respondent No. 6, the then Assistant Director in the office of Respondent No. 4, in removing the petitioner from service by a mere oral order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and malafide. The petitioner was removed without issuance of any notice and without affording him an opportunity of hearing, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned action is unsustainable in the eye of law and calls for interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the ground cited for removal, namely shortage of budget, is wholly false and untenable, as immediately after the petitioner’s removal, Respondent No. 7 was appointed in his place as a daily-wage Driver in the same office and under the same budget. This itself clearly demonstrates the arbitrariness of the action and exposes the mala fide intent of Respondent No. 6. Learned counsel further contends that from the documents placed on record, particularly Annexure P-10 (Colly), and from the representations made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement (Annexures P-3 and P-5), it is evident that the petitioner was removed with malafide intention by Respondent No. 6, Smt. Neelima Agrawal, who was then the Assistant Director and Officer-in-Charge of Respondent No. 4. Apart from official driving duties, the petitioner was also compelled to perform personal and peon-related work for Respondent No. 6,

¶33

5

¶34

and his removal was actuated by extraneous considerations and personal bias. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 6 sought to justify the petitioner’s removal by taking the name of Shri J. L. Dariyo, the Office Head at Raipur. However, when the petitioner personally met Shri Dariyo, he categorically denied having directed the petitioner’s removal and, in fact, instructed Respondent No. 6 over the telephone to take the petitioner back on duty, advising the petitioner to meet Respondent No. 6 at Bilaspur, but despite such clear instructions, no relief was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner had rendered continuous and blemish-free service from the year 2016 to 2020 at the District Public Relations Divisional Office, Bilaspur, without any complaint or adverse remark. Despite completing nearly four years of sincere service, the petitioner was suddenly and illegally removed on 03.12.2020 by an oral order on the pretext of budget constraints, without following any due process of law. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s removal is devoid of any legal foundation and has been carried out in complete disregard of the settled principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to such removal. On this ground alone, the impugned action deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief from this Court.

¶35

Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that all the adverse allegations,

¶36

6

¶37

averments, and imputations made by the petitioner against the answering respondents and State authorities are categorically, specifically, and vehemently denied. It is submitted that the petition is misconceived, based on incorrect assumptions of fact and law, and does not disclose any enforceable legal right in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy available under the labour laws by raising an industrial dispute before the competent Labour Court. Without availing such alternative remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is impermissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged purely as a daily-wage Vehicle Driver by the District Public Relations Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) on a temporary basis, and his wages were paid under the Labour Head. The engagement of the petitioner did not confer any right of continuance, regularization, or reinstatement. After his disengagement in December, 2020, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector, Bilaspur, and thereafter filed Writ Petition No. W.P.(S) 1317/2021 before this Court, which was disposed of on 05.04.2021 with a direction to consider his representation in accordance with rules, regulations, and administrative requirement. It is submitted that in due and faithful compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court,

¶38

7

¶39

the answering respondent No. 2 duly considered the petitioner’s representation and, upon finding that no sanctioned or approved post of Vehicle Driver was available, rejected the claim for reinstatement/re-engagement. The said decision was taken strictly in accordance with law and was duly communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 28.06.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the present petition amounts to a second round of litigation on the same cause of action, which is impermissible in law. Once the petitioner’s claim has already been considered and rejected in compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate the same issue by filing the present petition, as the impugned order is just, proper, legal, and does not call for any interference. Lastly, learned counsel for the State places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Darbar Singh Porte & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , reported in 2010 (3) CGLJ , wherein it has been categorically held that daily-wage employees cannot claim regularization, continuance, or reinstatement in service on the basis of a temporary engagement made dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. In view of the settled position of law, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record.

¶41

8

¶42

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the impugned communication dated 28.06.2021 and for a direction to reinstate him on the post of Driver (daily-wage) with full back wages. The petitioner claims that he was initially engaged on 19.08.2016 as a daily-wage Driver in the District Public Relations Office, Bilaspur, and had continuously worked till 03.12.2020 without any complaint or adverse remark.

¶43

Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage Driver and his engagement was not against any sanctioned post. It is also well settled by the judgment of this Court in Darbar Singh Porte & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, reported in 2010 (3) CGLJ , that a daily-wage employee cannot claim regularization or reinstatement as a matter of right. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner had admittedly worked for about four years continuously and that his services were dispensed with while another person was engaged thereafter. Even though no vested right of reinstatement accrues to a daily-wage employee, the principle of fairness and nonarbitrariness in State action, as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, requires that such disengagement and subsequent engagement be carried out in a fair and transparent manner.

¶44

In the considered opinion of this Court, while the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as prayed for, his

¶45

9

¶46

grievance that he was removed and replaced without being given any preference deserves consideration by the competent authority. The respondents, being instrumentalities of the State, are expected to act fairly, especially where a person has rendered continuous service for a considerable period. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if a limited and equitable direction is issued to the respondents to examine the petitioner’s claim for consideration/preference in accordance with law, without granting any automatic right of reinstatement or regularization.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the respondent–State authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner for engagement/preference, if and when engagement to the post of Driver (daily-wage or otherwise) is made in the concerned office, keeping in view his past service of about four years. Such consideration shall be made strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules, without treating this order as a direction for reinstatement, regularization, or grant of back wages.

¶48

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to regularization or permanent appointment.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Shayna

Ram Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Yadav 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

Smt. Alma Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A. K. Patre Vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Pramila Pandey

Smt. Savitri Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Savita Miller