Chattisgarh High Court
Janak Lal Choudhari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5639 of 2019
Janak Lal Choudhari S/o Shri Arjun Singh Choudhry, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Gopalpur, Post Khobha, Police Station And Tahsil
Chhuriya, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter, Jail Road
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Durg, Durg Circle, Near 5 Building
District Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Rajnandgaon, In Front Of
P T S , G E Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For petitioner : Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05/10/2021
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
01/10/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondents whereby the claim
for regularization of the petitioner has been rejected. The rejection by the
respondent was on the ground that petitioner does not fulfill the
requirements under the circular dated 05/03/2008 and moreover the said
benefit was extended as a one time measure for those persons eligible
when the circular was published.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that so far as the service of
petitioner is concerned, there is an order in his favour by the labour Court,
Rajnandgaon dated 20.11.2015 wherein, it has been categorically held that
2
the petitioner was working as Chowkidar from 1995 to September, 2011
when he was apparently discontinued. The discontinuance was subjected
to challenge in the labour Court. The labour Court held that the
discontinuance is bad in law and ordered for reinstatement in service on
his previous post.
3. Pursuant to the award dated 20.11.2015, the petitioner has been
reinstated in service in the year 2015 and since then he is in continuous
employment. According to the counsel for petitioner the said award of the
labour Court has not been challenged before any other forum and as such
the award has become final. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
in the light of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Tukaram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 1703/2015 and others,
analogous writ petitions decided on 16.05.2017, the petitioner has to be
given the advantage of counting his service from the date of his initial
appointment till date and the entire intervening period has to be treated as
continuous service and thereby the case of petitioner should have been
considered, in the light of the circular dated 05.03.2008.
4. The State counsel however opposing the petition, submits that the
petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as sought and the impugned
order, Annexure (P-1) seems to be a factually justified order. State counsel
further submits that it is a case where the petitioner has raised a claim
before the labour Court after about 10 years and therefore that intervening
10 years period cannot be counted. He further refers to the judgment of
Tukaram (Supra) wherein he submits that the judgment would also state
that it is the period during which the petitioner was litigating before the
labour Court that would be counted for continuity in service, not for the
date during which he had not raised the industrial dispute.
3
5. Given the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, it would
be relevant at this juncture to refer to the paragraph 26 of the judgment of
Tukaram (Supra). For ready reference, it has been reproduce herein
under :-
"26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The
question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these
petitions is answered in the afriatite in fatour of the
petitioners-workers holding that they would not fall in the
category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled
for continuity of sertice for the period they were out of
eiployient while they were litigating before the Labour
Court."
6. From the aforesaid observations, it is abruptly clear that this Court's
decision was clear on this count that it is the litigating period for which the
petitioner would be entitled for the benefit. Facts
of the present case when
considered from the judgment of the labour Court, it appears that he had
worked between 1995 to September, 2011 thereafter he was removed.
The removal has been held illegal by an order passed in 2015. Thereafter,
he has been reinstated. The dispute was raised by the petitioner for the first
time in the year 2012, when the reference was made to the labour Court.
Between 2011 to 2012, the petitioner had in fact not worked anywhere
neither had he challenged his removal before any forum. Keeping in view
the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Tukaram (Supra), it would
clearly reflect that the litigating period for petitioner would be between 2012
to 2015. Thus, it is only from 2012 onwards, the petitioner would be
deemed to be in continuous service. In the aforesaid factual back drop the
total length of service so far as the petitioner is concerned, would be
between 1995 to 2011 and from the year 2012 till date. As he has been
reinstated after the award of the labour Court, if we take the said two
periods that is from 1995 to 2011 and 2012 to 2021, apparently the
petitioner has put in more than 25 years of service and the initial
appointment of the petitioner was prior to 31.12.1997, therefore, the
respondent authorities would have to accordingly reconsider the case of the
petitioner and pass a fresh order, so far as his claim for regularization is
concerned.
7. Keeping in view the circular dated 05.03.2008, the writ petition
accordingly stands disposed off and the impugned order (Annexure P-1) to
that extent stands set aside/quashed. Let a fresh order be passed by the
respondent authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Khatai JUDGE
