Chattisgarh High Court
Dilip Hedau vs Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas ... on 29 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 91 of 2020
Dilip Hedau S/o Shri Hatiram Hedau, Aged About 54 Years, Residing
At E-9, Green Park Colony, Vishal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
492001
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas Board Through Its Chairman,
Chhattisgarh Haat Campus Opposite Mahalakshmi Cloth Market,
Thana Pandri, Raipur, C.G. 492001
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Hastashilp Vikas Board Chhattisgarh
Haat Campus Opposite Mahalakshmi Cloth Market, Thana Pandri,
Raipur, C.G. 492001
3. Secretary, Department Of Gramudhyog, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Thana Mandir Hasod,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Thana
Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Its Chairman, Pt.
Deen Dyal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Mr. Ashish
Surana, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2 :- Mr. P. N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate, along with
Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondents 3 to 5 :- Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgement On Board
(29.04.2022)
Per P. Sam Koshy, Judge
1. The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of the order
passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal
No.50/2018 decided on 06.12.2018.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present review petition is
that the petitioner herein was an employee under the respondents 1 &
2. While working under the respondents 1 & 2, the service of
petitioner was terminated vide order dated 19.12.2014. The
cancellation of appointment was on the ground that the caste
certificate which the petitioner had obtained for the purpose of
obtaining employment was subsequently cancelled by the High Power
Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State. The cancellation of caste
certificate by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee was not
subjected to challenge before any competent court of law.
3. The order of termination from service dated 19.12.2014 was
subjected to challenge in WPS No.244/2015. After hearing the
parties, the Writ Court finally allowed the writ petition vide judgment
dated 02.01.2017. The termination order was quashed and there was
a direction for reinstatement of petitioner with 50% of back wages with
other consequential benefits. The order passed on 02.01.2017 in WPS
No.244/2015 was subjected to challenge in Writ Appeal No.50/2018.
The Writ Appeal was finally allowed by the Division Bench of this
Court on 06.12.2018 setting aside the order of the Single Bench and
upholding the order of termination.
4. The order of the Division Bench dated 06.12.2018 was further
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP
No.31359/2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
13.09.2019 dismissed the SLP thereby affirming the order of the
Division Bench dated 06.12.2018. Subsequent to the dismissal of
SLP, the instant Review Petition has been filed.
5. The Review Petition has been filed seeking for an indulgence of the
Division Bench to the extent of protection of employment taking into
consideration various circulars that were issued by the State Govt.
from time to time whereby under similar circumstances the
employment was to be protected without giving any advantage of
reservation.
6. Pending the present review petition before this Court, there has been
further development inasmuch as an issue of similar nature came up
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to whether in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food
Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670,
the employment of those persons against whom judgments have been
passed could be protected particularly taking note of various circulars
that have been issued by the State Govt. from time to time granting
protection only so far as the employment is concerned without
extending the benefit of reservation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
dealing with the said issue decided the same in the case of Chief
Regional Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pradip
and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 144 whereby it has been categorically
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the light of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Balaram Bahira
(supra), all administrative orders and decisions that have been issued
by the respective State Governments extending protection of
employment would also automatically lose its efficacy and such
petitioners or employees would not be entitled for any protection
including that of employment.
7. Pursuant to the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Company (supra) the State of Chhattisgarh
have further issued yet another circular on 02.09.2021 thereby they
have withdrawn all earlier administrative instructions and circulars
extending the protection of employment.
8. In the light of, firstly the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) as also in the light of
the circular dated 02.09.2021 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, the
grounds raised by the petitioner in the present Review Petition no
longer would have any strength to sustain. The Review Petition thus
being bereft of merits any further deserves to be and is accordingly
rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE JUDGE
Khatai
