Smt. Alma Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Admn), Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Koriya, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L.

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

2

28.01.2026

The instant petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 14.08.2023, which was passed without considering the representation dated 18.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner. However, the petitioner had withdrawn her earlier representation dated 12.02.2021 by way of a subsequent representation dated 18.02.2021, which had duly come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities. Despite the same, the respondent authorities failed to consider the said representation, as a result of which the petitioner has suffered loss of four years’ seniority.

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶22

“1. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to set aside the order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P/13) and;;

¶23

2. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing to respondent authorities to give seniority to the petitioner from 01.07.2020 to the post of Private Secretary;

¶24

3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

3

¶26

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Stenographer Grade-III in the Forest Division, Koriya, Circle Surguja, in the year 2008 vide appointment order dated 09.07.2008. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Private Secretary in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 01.07.2020. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the relieving to the promoted post was temporarily put on hold. However, the petitioner was directed to join as Private Secretary in Forest Division, Koriya, vide order dated 13.08.2020, pursuant to which she joined on the same day. Subsequently, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Stenographer Grade-III by letter dated 27.01.2021 and joined the post of Private Secretary in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Atal Nagar, Raipur, on 01.02.2021. Considering her compelling personal circumstances, namely, that she is the sole caretaker of her 75-year-old ailing mother and her minor child, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.02.2021 seeking re-posting at Koriya, which was withdrawn by a subsequent representation dated 18.02.2021 addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, requesting posting at Forest Division, Koriya, as Private Secretary. The said representation was duly forwarded to the respondent authorities and acknowledged. However, without considering the said representation, respondent No. 3 arbitrarily passed the transfer order dated 26.02.2021, thereby reverting the petitioner from the

¶27

4

¶28

higher pay-scale post of Private Secretary (Level-9) to the lower pay-scale post of Stenographer Grade-III (Level-7). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner initially filed WPS No. 611 of 2021, which was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.06.2023 seeking revocation of the order dated 26.02.2021. Pursuant thereto, this Hon’ble Court, in WPS No. 4846 of 2023, directed the respondent authorities to decide the representation expeditiously and in accordance with law. However, the said representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.08.2023, without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 18.02.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner was again promoted to the post of Private Secretary and posted in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Atal Nagar, Raipur, vide order dated 21.08.2023, and she joined the said post accordingly. Due to the arbitrary reversion and non-consideration of her representation, the petitioner, despite being promoted in the year 2020, reverted in the year 2021, and again promoted in the year 2023, has suffered loss of four years’ seniority, causing grave prejudice to her service career.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Private Secretary in the year 2020, thereafter reverted to a lower pay-scale post in the year 2021, and again promoted to

¶30

5

¶31

the same post in the year 2023, due to which the petitioner has suffered loss of four years’ seniority, causing grave prejudice to her service career. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 was passed without considering the genuine family hardships of the petitioner, namely, her responsibility towards her aged mother and minor child, and that such reversion to a lower pay scale has adversely affected her family. It is also submitted that although the petitioner withdrew her earlier representation dated 12.02.2021 by submitting a subsequent representation dated 18.02.2021, which was duly received and acknowledged by the respondent authorities, the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. Further, the rejection of the petitioner’s representation vide impugned order dated 14.08.2023, without considering the representation dated 18.02.2021, is arbitrary, unjust, and has resulted in loss of seniority, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

¶32

Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has relied upon self-serving documents while suppressing material facts. It is submitted that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant vide order dated 01.07.2020, her posting at Koriya Forest Division was purely temporary and made only in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a clear stipulation that such arrangement would

¶33

6

¶34

not confer any right to continue at the said place. After normalcy was restored, the petitioner joined at the place of posting given on promotion on 01.02.2021 and thereafter, of her own volition, submitted a written request dated 12.02.2021 seeking posting at Koriya Forest Division Baikunthpur on the lower post of Stenographer under Fundamental Rule 15(a), thereby voluntarily giving up her promotional post. Acting upon the said request, the respondent authorities passed the order dated 26.02.2021 posting the petitioner as Stenographer Grade-III, pursuant to which she joined and continued to work without demur. It is further submitted that in compliance with the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 4846 of 2023, the petitioner’s representation dated 14.06.2023 was duly considered and, upon examination of the record, was rightly rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 14.08.2023, as there is no provision in law to grant retrospective seniority or promotion from 01.07.2020 after the petitioner herself relinquished the promotional post. The subsequent promotion granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2023 does not entitle her to claim past seniority, and therefore, the impugned orders are legal, justified, and free from any arbitrariness or infirmity, warranting no interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶35

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

¶36

7

¶37

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 01.07.2020. It is also not disputed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was initially allowed to work at Forest Division, Koriya, and thereafter joined the promoted post at the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Atal Nagar, Raipur, on 01.02.2021. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.02.2021 seeking posting at Koriya due to compelling family circumstances. However, before any final decision could be taken thereon, the petitioner withdrew the said representation by submitting a subsequent representation dated 18.02.2021, which was duly forwarded to and acknowledged by the respondent authorities. Despite such withdrawal, the petitioner was reverted to the lower post of Stenographer Grade-III vide order dated 26.02.2021. The record clearly reflects that the withdrawal of consent dated 18.02.2021 was very much within the knowledge of the respondent authorities. Once the petitioner had withdrawn her request for posting on a lower post, the respondent authorities were required to consider the same before passing any adverse order affecting her promotional status. Non-consideration of the subsequent representation dated 18.02.2021, therefore, renders the order dated 26.02.2021 arbitrary and unsustainable to that extent.

¶38

8

¶39

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2021, the petitioner continued to work on the lower post of Stenographer Grade-III for a considerable period and accepted the salary attached thereto. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim any monetary benefits for the period during which she admittedly discharged duties on the lower post. The petitioner was again promoted to the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 21.08.2023 and is presently working on the said post. The grievance of the petitioner is confined to loss of seniority caused due to the intervening period between 01.07.2020 and 21.08.2023, which has adversely affected her future promotional prospects.

¶40

The submission of learned State counsel that the petitioner had voluntarily relinquished her promotional post loses force in view of the undisputed fact that such relinquishment was expressly withdrawn prior to the issuance of the reversion order. Once the withdrawal was communicated, the respondent authorities could not have proceeded as if the earlier request continued to subsist.

¶41

In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met by granting the petitioner notional seniority on the post of Private Secretary from the date of her initial promotion, i.e., 01.07.2020, while denying any claim for back wages, arrears, or other monetary benefits for the period during which she actually worked on the lower post.

¶42

9

¶43

The impugned order dated 14.08.2023 is set aside to the extent it fails to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18.02.2021. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the petitioner notional seniority on the post of Private Secretary w.e.f. 01.07.2020, for all purposes of seniority, promotion, and other consequential service benefits. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, arrears of pay, or allowances for the period during which she worked on the lower post of Stenographer Grade-III.

¶44

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed .

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

sd/-

¶48

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶49

Vishakha

Smt. Alma Tirkey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Alma Tirkey 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girdhari Sahu Vs Phuleshwari Bai

Rakesh Kumar Sahu Vs Thalendra Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar Sahu

Suman Kumari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Samarinbai

Ashvan Kumar Katlam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Tekram Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh