Mohan Lal Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

RAVISHANKARMANDAVI Digitallysigned byRAVISHANKARMANDAVIDate:2026.05.0711:00:39+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:20849

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3866 of 2026

¶7

1 - Mohan Lal Dhruv S/o Latail Ram Dhruv Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Janjgira, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Sanjay Kumar Tikriha S/o Krishna Kumar Tikriha Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram PanchayatBartori, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Parmanand Bandhe S/o Ram Lal Banadhe Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Motimpur Kala, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Lalit Kumar Chandrakar S/o Prem Chandrakar Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Parsada (Kanki), Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Bharti Sahu W/o Tikam Sahu Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Nahardih, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

6 - Avadhram Varma S/o Sitaram Varma Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Pachri, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

7 - Rajendra Verma S/o Pratap Singh Verma Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Sachiv, At Gram Panchayat- Sontara, Janpad Panchayat- Tilda, Zila Panchayat- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

¶14

2

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

2 - Additional Chief Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

3 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Sector- 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

4 - Collector Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

6 - Committee For Deciding The Grievance Of Panchayat Sachiv Through Its Chairman, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Shakshi Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer.

¶23

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

05/05/2026

¶26

With the concent of the counsel for respective parties, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.

¶27

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶28

“ 10.1 To issue appropriate writ /order or direction and thereby direct the respondent authority/committee to submit its report to the state government in a time bound manner preferably within a period of two month.

¶29

3

¶30

10.2 To issue appropriate writ /order or direction and thereby direct the respondent state to decide the grievance of the petitioners in a time bound manner.

¶31

10.3 Grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the cost to the petitioner.”

¶32

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Karmi (Sachiv) in their respective Gram Panchayats under the territorial jurisdiction of Zila Panchayat, Raipur, during the years 1995 and 1996, and they continue to function as employees of the respective Panchayats under the general control of the State Government. Considering the longstanding demand for regularization of Panchayat Sachivs into the State Government cadre, the respondent State of Chhattisgarh, as a matter of policy, has acknowledged this issue, and the Hon’ble Chief Minister publicly declared the constitution of a committee to examine the matter and to take appropriate steps in furtherance of the legitimate expectations of the petitioners and similarly placed persons. Pursuant to this declaration, the Secretariat of the Chief Minister issued a formal communication to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, directing them to act upon the declaration and to periodically update the Chief Minister’s office. However, despite the lapse of more than

¶33

4

¶34

a year since the declaration and the subsequent official communication, no substantive action has been taken. The declaration of the Chief Minister and the consequent communication from the Secretariat have created a right of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel in favour of the petitioners and others similarly situated, thereby necessitating timely compliance regarding constitution of the committee and further proceedings for regularization of Panchayat Sachivs as government employees. Although the Chief Minister, being the head of the State Government, has taken a conscious decision after considering the peculiar circumstances and long-pending demands of the petitioners, and the concerned authorities are duty-bound to act in accordance with the communications issued, the respondents have failed to take any concrete steps, thereby frustrating the legitimate expectations of the petitioners through an act contrary to law. The newspaper reports published online and downloaded by the petitioners, reflecting the Chief Minister’s declaration regarding the constitution of a committee and the direction for time-bound action, further substantiate their claim. Despite the issuance of the communication dated 02.05.2022 by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat for giving effect to the declaration, the respondents have not complied with the directions in letter and spirit, resulting in infringement of the petitioners’ right to legitimate expectation. As policies are required to operate within a

¶35

5

¶36

reasonable time frame, the deliberate inaction in constituting the committee has jeopardized the rights of the petitioners and similarly placed persons, thereby warranting appropriate directions from this Hon’ble Court to uphold the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been instituted seeking a limited but necessary direction to the competent authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the constitution of the committee, as notified vide memo dated 02.05.2022, and further to ensure that consequential orders are issued strictly on the basis of the recommendations made by the said committee, so that the petitioner’s lawful claim may be adjudicated in a just and timely manner.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the respondents are actively considering the claim as raised in the petition and, in this regard, they undertake that the competent authorities shall pass appropriate and necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of 90 days, thereby ensuring that the grievance raised in the present petition is duly examined and decided within the stipulated time frame.

¶39

6

¶40

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

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the concerned respondent authorities are directed to decide the grievance of the petitioners by way of constitution of the committee and to pass appropriate orders within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of .

¶43

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

Ravi Mandavi

Mohan Lal Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Dhruv 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parivesh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Geeta Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deval Singh Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh