Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 September, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 4780 of 2021
1. Pramod Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late J.P. Shrivastava Aged About 57
Years Sub Engineer, Presently Working As Assistant Project Manager,
(Sub Engineer), Chhattisgarh Road And Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited (C.G.R And I D C L) Ambikpur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh.
2. Jagdish Prasad Chaudhary S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Chaudhary Aged
About 57 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer, In The Office Of
Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division No. 2, Bilaspur, R/o Dayalband,
Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidhyalaya, Munshi Ram Gali No. 2, Police
Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Rekha Pandey W/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Pandey Aged About 55
Years R/o S.M.I.G. 41 Vajpayee Castle, Minocha Colony, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department
(Pwd), Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North
Block, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
09.09.2021.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated
26.09.2019, 25.10.2019 and 26.09.2019 (Annexure P/1 Collectively).
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners No.1&2 and the
husband of petitioner No.3 were initially appointed under the respondents
as a daily wage employee on the post of Sub Engineer. In due course of
time, the services of petitioners No.1&2 stood regularized on 25.07.1994
whereas the Husband of the petitioner No.3 stood regularized on
30.12.1998. Vide WPS Nos. 6556/2018, 2975/2019 and 6265/2018 the
petitioners No.1&2 and the Husband of the petitioner No.3 had
approached this Court claiming a relief from the respondents for
considering their services as daily wage employee for the purpose of grant
of seniority and also for the benefit of annual increments etc. The claim of
petitioners was on the basis of an order passed by the State Administrative
Tribunal in O.A. No. 1979/91 in the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs.
State of MP and another. This Court vide orders dated 04.10.2018,
24.04.2019 and 24.09.2018 respectively disposed of the said writ petitions
for taking an appropriate decision keeping in view the judgment of the
State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Satis Kumar Mandloi (supra).
Pursuant to the orders of this Court the respondents convened a meeting
and the case of petitioners were scrutinized and the claim of petitioners for
seniority from their initial date of appointment were rejected vide orders
impugned Annexure P/1 collectively.
3. A plain perusal of the orders under challenge i.e. Annexure P-1 would
clearly reflect that the decision has been taken by the respondents in the
light of a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Purushottam Lal
Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 836/2019 decided
on 08.02.2019. There is no reference in the impugned orders as regards
the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Satish
Kumar Mandloi. There is also no comparative assessment of the claim of
petitioners qua the benefit extended to Satish Kumar Mandloi. The
decision in the case of petitioners, have been only based upon a
subsequent decision rendered by this Court in the case of Purushottam Lal
Sahu (supra).
4. A similar issue came up for hearing in WPS No. 958/2020 and other
connected matters where the writ petitions filed on behalf of similarly
placed persons were taken into consideration and this Court vide order
dated 24.02.2021 considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties therein in paragraphs 8 to 10 held as under:
"8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and
on perusal of records, if we take note of the observations
made by this Court in the earlier round of litigation on behalf
of the petitioners, the order of which is reproduced in the
preceding paragraphs it would clearly reflect that this Court
had disposed of the writ petition on clear understanding
arrived at on the basis of submissions made by the counsel
appearing on either side that petitioners case needs
consideration in terms of the order passed by SAT in the case
of Satish Kumar Mandloi's which in other words means that
case of the petitioner ought to had been evaluated in
comparison to the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi then the
Committee should have reach to a conclusion whether the
case of the petitioners herein was similar to that of Satish
Kumar Mandloi or not and if not how is it different than that of
case of Satish Kumar Mandloi. The impugned order does not
speak of or refer to anything as such nor does it reflect any
evaluation having been done to reach to a conclusion that
petitioner would not be entitled for the benefits as has been
provided to Satish Kumar Mandloi. On the contrary the
impugned order refers to an order that is the case of the
Purushottam Sahu which was not referred to by this Court
while disposing of the writ petition of the petitioners and
therefore the authorities could not have decided the claim of
the petitioners only relying upon the orders passed in the
case of Purushottam Sahu, particularly when the respondents
have decided to act upon the order passed by this Court in
the case of the petitioners by constituting a Committee and
evaluating the claim of the petitioners.
9. Plain perusal of the impugned order would reveal that
after referring to the facts of the individual petitioners and
observing the directions given by this Court in the case of
petitioners, they have jumped to the conclusion denying the
claim of the petitioners only on the basis of order passed by
this Court in the case of Purushottam Sahu i.e. WPS
836/2019 decided on 08.02.2019. This was not the mandate
of the order passed by this Court. The said impugned order
thus would not be sustainable and same deserves to be
remitted back for a fresh consideration of the claims of each
of the petitioners strictly considering the case of the
respective petitioners in comparison to the case of Satish
Kumar Mandloi and thereafter the Committee is expected to
evaluate whether the status of the petitioners are in parity
with the status of the S.K.Mandloi and why the petitioners
should not be given the benefit that has been extended to
Satish Kumar Mandloi. Accordingly, the impugned orders
Annexure P-6 to P-64 in WPS 958/2020 and Annexure P-6 in
WPS 3601/2020 deserves to be and is accordingly hereby
set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the
respondents for a fresh decision to be taken by the
Committee in terms of the observations made in the
preceding paragraphs by this Court.
10. Considering the fact that present is a second round of
litigation, the Committee is expected to take a decision at the
earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order."
5. In those writ petitions also it was a similar order taken by the respondents
based upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Purushottam Lal
Sahu and this Court after hearing the parties had remitted those matters to
the State authorities for a fresh consideration of the case of petitioners
therein. That it was specifically directed that since in the first round of the
litigation the direction by this Court was to compare the case of petitioners
with that of Satish Kumar Mandloi, the respondent authorities were
expected to take a decision comparing the case of petitioners with that of
Satish Kumar Mandloi and then to reach to a conclusion.
6. Since this Court had already in the said matter as early as on 24.02.2021
taken this view and remitted the matter to the State authorities for a fresh
consideration and decision and the facts of the present case being on
similar set of facts, the present writ petition also stands disposed of in
similar terms as rendered in WPS No. 958/2020 and connected matters
decided on 24.02.2021.
7. As a consequence, the impugned orders in the present writ petition
Annexure P-1 stands quashed and the matter stands remitted back to the
respondents for an appropriate decision to be taken by the Committee
afresh in terms of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs and
also the observations made by this Court in WPS No. 958/2020, within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
