Shri Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs the Asst. Commissioner Tribal Development

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:12181

NAFR

SHYNA AJAY

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 4251 of 2023

¶8

1 - Shri Dilip Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Kartikram Yadav, Aged About 56 Years, Working Under Office Of The Respondent No. 2, Industrial Training Institute Korba Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Shri Santram Yadav S/o Shri Fadalram Yadav, Aged About 56 Years, Working Under Office Of The Respondent No. 2, Industrial Training Institute Korba Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - The Asst. Commissioner Tribal Development Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag Korba Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2 - The Principal Industrial Training Institute Korba Tahsil And DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Director Directorate Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Joint Director Industrial Training Institutions Regional Office Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

2

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

WPS No. 6330 of 2024

¶19

1 - Nanki Ram Sahu S/o Hira Ram Sahu, Aged About 56 Years Occupation-Service, Presently Posted And Working As Chowkidar Industrial Training Institute, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), R/o Quarter No. I-15, Industrial Training Institute Colony, Rampur, Korba, DistrictKorba (C.G.)

¶20

2 - Shyam Lal Yadav S/o Late Tiharu, Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted And Working As Jalwahak, Industrial Training Institute, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), R/o Quarter No. I-22, Industrial Training Institute Colony, Rampur, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)

¶21

3 - Sufal Ram Sidar S/o Late Jagbandhu Sidar, Aged 57 Years Presently Posted And Working As Mali (Gardner), Industrial Training Institute, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), R/o Quarter No. I-20, Industrial Training Institute Colony, Rampur, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.).

¶22

4 - Bharat Lal Yadav S/o Late Birbal Yadav, Aged 52 Years, Presently Posted And Working As Cook (Rasoiaya), Industrial Training Institute, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), R/o Quarter No. I-06, Industrial Training Institute Colony, Rampur, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶23

--- Petitioner(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶26

3

¶27

2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, (Training Wing), Block-4, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

3 - Collector, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)

¶29

4 - Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.)

¶30

--- Respondent(s)

¶31

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer

¶33

S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶34

Order on Board

¶35

13/03/2026

¶36

By way of these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 21.6.2023, whereby the respondent authorities have withdrawn/set-aside the fixation of the petitioner’s regular pay scale on the ground that they are not regular employees.

¶37

Since all the writ petitions involve a common question of law and are founded on similar facts and circumstances, they have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶38

For the sake of convenience and clarity, WPS No.4251/2023 has been treated as the lead case and the facts of the said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication.

¶39

Brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that they were

¶40

4

¶41

appointed in the Tribal Welfare Department, Korba on 30.3.1992 and 28.5.1993 to the posts of Jalvahak (Waterman) and Rasoiya (Cook) respectively. These appointments were initially on a temporary basis for a period of 89 days as contingency paid employees at ITI, Korba. After the expiry of 89 days, their services were periodically extended. Subsequently, the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 6.2.2001 (Annexure P/1) with effect from the respective dates mentioned against their names in the said order upon the successful completion of three years of service. After the regularization of the petitioners, their pay scales were duly fixed. However, subsequently, this pay fixation was cancelled, which was challenged by the petitioners before the competent authority. The competent authority set-aside the cancellation order, thereby restoring the pay fixation. Consequently, the petitioners received full salary under the 5^th and 6^th Pay Scale including increments till 2006. All of a sudden, the then Principal, ITI, Korba in an arbitrary and illegal manner, abruptly stopped the petitioners’ increment in the year 2007 along with six other employees. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners moved a representation before the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances. When the Deputy Collector, Korba sought an explanation from the concerned Principal, ITI, Korba - respondent No.2 in this regard, the latter replied that a letter of approval has been forwarded to respondent No.3. Despite the enquiries conducted by the Collector, Korba, respondents 3 & 4 failed to release the pending increments. Hence, the concerned

¶42

5

¶43

respondents deprived the petitioners of the benefit of 7^th pay scale and Time-Bound Pay Scale. In an earlier round of litigation i.e. WPS No.5793/2021 filed by petitioner No.1, by order dated 25.4.2023, this Court had directed respondent No.2 to convene a DPC for grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the said order and submit his report forthwith. However, respondent No.2 did not comply with the directions passed by this Court and passed the impugned order dated 21.6.2023 stating that the petitioners are not regular employees and are thus, ineligible for regular pay scale. Furthermore, this order was passed without granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. As the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and passed with a malafide intent, the petitioners have filed these petitions.

¶44

The petitioners in WPS No.4251/2023 have prayed for the following reliefs in their petition :

¶45

10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners.

¶46

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside the order dated 21/06/23(annexure P/8)

¶47

10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted.

¶48

The petitioners in WPS No.6330/2024 have prayed for the following reliefs in their petition :

¶49

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶50

6

¶51

direct the respondents to call for the entire records of the case.

¶52

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 28/09/2021 bearing No.F/Sanropra/Estt.-Pra/Nya.Prak./2021/3205 passed by respondent no.2 (ANNEXURE P/1): order dated 02/02/2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing No.F 6/Sanropra/Estt-pra/2024/583 (ANNEXURE P/2) and order dated 21/06/2023 No.1170/Aauprasan./Estt./202324 passed by respondent no.4 (ANNEXURE P/3).

¶53

10.3 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶54

10.4 Cost of the petition.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the petitioners were contingency paid employees, a fact duly supported by the entries in their service books. He further submits on submitting a representation by the petitioners, the Additional Collector, Korba submitted a detailed Enquiry Report (Annexure P/5), which clearly demonstrates that the regularization of the petitioners’ services was correct and lawful. Furthermore, the Collector determined that the petitioners were not daily wage employees. A direction was also issued to the concerned authority to grant pending increment with arrears. Notwithstanding these findings, the impugned order was passed by respondent No.2 in an arbitrary manner without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that one similarly situated employee Pradeep Kumar has filed a writ petition before this Court, wherein higher pay scale

¶56

7

¶57

has been granted to him. Likewise, other similarly situated ClassIV employees are also being granted regular increments and other benefits. The petitioners, being placed in identical circumstances, is entitled for the same treatment on the ground of parity. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the order passed in the matter of Ganga Charan Damde Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2023) 1 MPWN 96. Hence, learned for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions.

¶58

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the order 06.02.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Principal ITI, Korba) was not an order of regularization but an order for disbursement of salary. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department vide order dated 08.02.2002 cancelled the order dated 06.02.2001 on the ground that the pay fixation was passed without seeking due permission from the competent authority i.e. respondent No.1. He further submits that vide order dated 10.2.2003, the Government of Chhattisgarh merged the Department of Tribal Development into the SC/ST Development Department. Thus, the competent authority for pay fixation and service absorption, including that of the petitioners, is now respondent No.3 -Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur (CG). Similarly, the petitioner’s services were never regularized by the competent authority, therefore, the order dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Deputy Collector, District Korba for fixation of pay is without

¶59

8

¶60

jurisdiction. He submits that pursuant to the instructions and opinion of the General Administration Department, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected after due consideration. Furthermore, the petitions suffer from delay and laches; while the cause of action arose in the year 2007, the petitioners have sought a specific pay scale after a lapse of 15-16 years, despite the fact the petitioners’ services were never regularized. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners for regularization was rejected in accordance with law. He submits that the petitioners are not similarly situated to the other employees who have been granted the benefit of higher pay scale. He submits that there exist distinguishing features in the petitioners’ cases which disentitle them from claiming parity with those employees. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the State would place reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 . He lastly submits to dismiss the petitions.

¶61

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petitions with utmost circumspection.

¶62

A bare perusal of the record, it appears that that the petitioners already attained the status of regular pay employees vide order dated 6.2.2001 and the said regularization was with effect from the respective dates mentioned against their names. Their pay scale was also fixed at Rs.750-12-870-15-945 (2550-55-2660-60-

¶63

9

¶64

3200), as detailed in the aforementioned order. Subsequently, when the benefits of the said order were not extended to the petitioners concerned, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Korba intervened and set-aside the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba (CG) {Annexure R/4} and directed the authorities to grant the pay scale as mentioned in the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by respondent No.2. Even after the aforesaid directions issued, when the benefits were not extended to the petitioners, one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1 (Dilip Kumar Yadav) approached this Court by filing WPS No.5793/2021. This Court vide order order dated 25.4.2023 directed the respondents to grant the higher pay scale within four weeks from the date of passing of the order and to submit a compliance report forthwith. Thereafter, perhaps, in a blatant attempt to frustrate the directions passed by this Court, the respondent authority has passed the impugned order dated 21.6.2023. The said order is totally misconceived and dehors the basic principles of service jurisprudence.

¶65

A perusal of the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by respondent No.2 would reveal that the petitioners were granted regular pay scale in accordance with Memo No.1049/98, Bhopal dated 14.9.1998 issued by the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh. Having completed three years of service, the petitioners were legally entitled to and were subsequently granted the benefit of the regular pay scale. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioners were never appointed as

¶66

10

¶67

contingency paid employees or absorbed into the post of a contingency paid employee is factually incorrect and not sustainable. The petitioners have been rendering continuous services since 1992 pursuant to their respective appointment orders issued by the competent authority. Having served the department for more than 20 years, the impugned order seeking to alter or displace the petitioners’ status is not justified. The petitioners, being low-income employees were granted regular pay scale upon the completion of three years of service. Consequently, they nurtured a legitimate expectation that their services were being treated as regular. After granting regular pay scale and recognizing their status for years, the respondents’ current contention that the petitioners were not appointed on a regular basis is arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

¶68

Even though the petitioners may not have been appointed on a regular basis initially, they have continuously served the Department for a period exceeding 20 years. There is nothing on record to suggest that their services were ever redundant or that they were treated as surplus employees. The contention raised by the respondent authorities in this regard is factually baseless and cannot be accepted. Moreover, Service Books were duly opened in respect of the petitioners, wherein grant of regular pay scale was duly recorded and ultimately, after such a prolonged period, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their regular pay scale or their status as regular employees. The impugned action stands in the teeth of the established facts and record, which

¶69

11

¶70

clearly demonstrate that the matter was duly considered and verified by the concerned Collector, who passed the orders after due scrutiny of the material on record.

¶71

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order in not in accordance with law. By passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner, which is tainted by malafide intentions. Consequently, there is a patent illegality in the issuance of the impugned order by respondent No.2-The Principal, ITI, Korba.

¶72

Furthermore, when one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1 has approached this Court by filing WPS No.5793/2021, this Court, vide order dated 25.4.2023, has specifically directed the respondent authorities to grant regular pay scale. The Court further directed the submission of a compliance report, leaving no ifs and buts, and emphasizing that there was no alternative but to comply with the judicial mandate for grant of regular pay scale.

¶73

Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.6.2023 (Annexure P/8) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant regular pay scale in accordance with the order dated 6.2.2001 (Annexure P/1) along with all consequential benefits to all the petitioners expeditiously.

¶74

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petitions are finally disposed of. Sd/-

¶75

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶76

Shyna Ajay

Shri Dilip Kumar Yadav v. the Asst. Commissioner Tribal Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dilip Kumar Yadav v. the Asst. Commissioner Tribal Development

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. Prem Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Medani Prasad Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Singhaniya Construction Com. Vs Smt. Laxmin Bai

Nanki Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Yadav Vs Ganeshuram

Ramesh Prasad Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh