Chattisgarh High Court
Awadh Bihari Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 January, 2022
1
(Proceedings through video conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 34 of 2022
Awadh Bihari Dwivedi, S/o Lt. Baram Ram Dwivedi, aged about 63
year, Occupation - Retired Lecturer at Government Multipurpose
Higher Secondary School Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Directorate of Public
Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-3 First Floor, New Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director of Public Education, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Joint Director of Public Education, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
4. District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
25.01.2022
Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 11.02.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 538 of 2021,
whereby, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. This appeal is accompanied by I.A. No. 1 of 2022, which is an
application for condoning the delay of 330 days.
4. The appeal was filed on 20.12.2021.
5. In view of period of limitation being extended because of 'Covid-19'
pandemic by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Registry has given a note
that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation. I.A. No. 1 of 2022,
accordingly, stands disposed of.
6. The appellant is a retired Lecturer of Government Multipurpose
Higher Secondary School, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa.
7. The petitioner in the writ petition prayed for a direction to the
respondents to rectify his date of regularization in service from
04.07.1986 to 10.02.1986 and grant him seniority as well as retiral dues
accordingly. Prayer was also made for setting aside of an order dated
18.05.2020 by which the prayer made by the petitioner for correcting date
of regularization was rejected.
8. Mr. Tripathi submits that in his service-book as well as in the
gradation list, the petitioner's date of joining is recorded as 10.02.1986
and therefore, the respondents have committed illegality in not counting
his earlier service as an Ad-hoc Teacher from 10.02.1986 to 04.07.1986
while regularizing the service of the petitioner.
9. The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had received
all the benefits and periodical promotions accepting his date of
appointment to be 04.07.1986 and no objection was raised by the
petitioner all throughout and that the issue is sought to be raised after his
retirement.
10. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that service of the
petitioner was discontinued on 30.04.1986, and thereafter, he was re-
appointed with effect from 02.07.1986 onwards and thus, there was a
break in service.
11. A copy of the order dated 04.05.1988 by which service of the
petitioner was regularized reflects that his date of regularization is
indicated as 04.07.1986.
12. When the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from
04.07.1986, assuming that in the service-book or in the gradation list, the
same is recorded as 10.02.1986, the same has to be understood as a
ministerial error.
13. We see no good ground to take a view other than the view taken by
the learned Single Judge, more so, because of the stale claim made by
the petitioner, and accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
