Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh State Coperative ... vs Chhattisgah State Schedule Caste ... on 3 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No.1490 of 2013
Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, Through its Secretary,
Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.), P.S. Civil Lines
Raipuir (C.G.), Tahsil and District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgah State Schedule Caste Schedule
Tribe Commission, Government of Chhattisgarh,
61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, PS Civil Lines,
Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Shri Balram Saidaiha, S/o Shri Darbar Singh
Saidaiha, R/o Village and Post Sakri, Kisan
Rice Mill, Sakri, Tahsil and District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Respondents
For Petitioner Mr. Ashish Surana, Adv.
For RespondentState Mr. A. S. Kachhawaha, Adv.
For Respondent No.2 Mr. R. V. Rajwade, Adv.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
03/09/2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up
through Video Conferencing.
2. The petitioner herein calls in question the
legality, validity and the correctness of the
order dated 14.03.2013 (AnnexureP/1) passed
by the respondent No.1, whereby the respondent
No.1 has recommended and directed for
promotion of respondent No.2 on the post of
Field Assistant w.e.f. 07.07.2008.
3. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that the respondent
No.1 has recommended and directed for
promotion of respondent No.2 ex post facto,
but it is only the recommendatory body in
light of the decision rendered by this Court
in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power
Generation Co. Ltd. Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya
Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog and another1. In that
view of the matter, the writ petition deserves
to be allowed.
4. Mr. A. S. Kachhawaha and Mr. R. V. Rajwade,
learned counsels for the respondents, would
support the impugned orders.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made
hereinabove and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
1 2017 SCC Online Chh 1135
6. The issue of power and jurisdiction of the
Commission relating to service dispute has
been considered and decided by this Court in
the matter of Chhattisgarh State Power
Generation Co. Ltd. (supra). In paras 10, 13,
14, 15, this Court held as under:
"10. Following the principle of law
enunciated in abovestated judgments
rendered by Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court, it is quite vivid
that the function of the
Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati
Ayog constituted under the Act of
1995 is advisory in nature. The
power and jurisdiction to make
enquiry and adjudication in regard
to the rights of the Schedule Tribes
have not been conferred to the State
Commission by Act of 1995.
Therefore, the Commission
constituted under the Act of 1995
has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and
as such State commission is not a
tribunal exercising functions of
judicial character or Civil Court
and cannot determine rights of the
Schedule Tribes. The State
Commission can by virtue of
functions entrusted to him by
Section 9(1) of the Act can
supervise and see that the
protection granted to members of
Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India or under any
other law for the time being in
force is actually extended to them
and proper implementation and
execution of programmes meant for
them and also to make recommendation
for the State Government for
insertion of certain tribes/group of
tribes in the Constitution (ST)
Order 1950 and further advice for
representation of Scheduled Tribe in
public function being only a body
competent to make recommendation to
the State Government as well as to
make advise to the State Government.
13. After having noticed the
principles of law flowing from the
aforesaid decisions reverting back
to the facts of the case, it is
quite vivid that respondent No.2 has
claimed correction / upgradation of
his ACR as well as promotion from
retrospective effect and further
claimed registration of criminal
case against the officers of the
petitioner Company under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, including
taking disciplinary action against
them. None of the reliefs claimed by
respondent No.2 relates to the
protection afforded to the members
of the Scheduled Tribes under the
Constitution and under any other law
for the time being in force. It is
not the case that reservation
provided to the members of the
Scheduled Tribes is not being
afforded to them or that admission
in a particular college in the
reserved seat is not being given to
them. The reliefs claimed are out
and out pertaining to pure and
simple service matter that could be
considered and granted by the
jurisdictional court. So far as the
relief of registration of case
against the officers of the
petitioner Company under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is concerned, that can
also be considered and granted by
the jurisdictional criminal court on
the application / complaint made
competently in that behalf.
Therefore, none of those reliefs
fall within the scope of Section
9(1) (a) of the Act, 1995 warranting
cognizance to be taken by the
respondent ST Aayog. Thus, the
respondent Commission is absolutely
unjustified in holding that under
Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, 1995
such a relief, which respondent No.2
has claimed, can be granted.
14. As a fallout and consequence of
aforesaid discussion, the order
passed by the respondent Commission
dated 1342017 along with the
proceeding of Misc. Case No.612/2017
is hereby quashed. It is held that
the Commission has no jurisdiction
to hear and make recommendations so
far as the reliefs claimed in the
application dated 612017 is
concerned. Accordingly, respondent
No.1 is restrained from going ahead
with the matter.
15. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent sketched hereinabove
leaving the parties to bear their
own cost(s)."
7. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid
down, the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction
to entertain the service dispute relating to
promotion of respondent No.2, as such the
impugned order (AnnexureP/1) is set aside.
However, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to
claim promotion on the post of Field Assistant
in accordance with law and this order will not
be a bar for respondent No.2 in claiming
promotion.
8. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to
cost (s).
9. The vakalatnama filed on behalf of Mr. Ashish
Surana be taken on record.
Sd/
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judge
Nirala
