Shyam Ji Mishra vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3174 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (S) No. 6806 of 2021
   1. Shyam Ji Mishra S/o Shri Tej Narayan Mishra Aged About 57 Years
      Presently Working As Sub Engineer In The Officer Of Sub- Division (B And
      R), Kasdol Under Executive Engineer, P. W. D. (B And R), Baloda Bazar
      Division, R/o Near Maruti Residency, Amalidih, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
   1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department,
      Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   2. The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Raipur,
      District Raipur Chhattisgarh
   3. The Chief Engineer (B And R) Public Works Department, Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh
   4. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (B And R), Baloda
      Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---Respondents

      For Petitioner              :      Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate.
      For Respondent/State        :      Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

                        Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order on Board

02.05.2022

1. The matter was taken up for orders on IA No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay in payment of PF. However, considering the fact that all the respondents stand represented by the State counsel, who has already entered appearance, issuance of notice stands dispensed with and accordingly defaults stand ignored. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 18.10.2019, Annexure P/1. The present is a second round of litigation. In earlier round of litigation this Court had disposed of the writ petition with following observations :-

"4. A similarly situated employees approached the State Administrative Tribunal (for short SAT) in Original Application No. 1979 of 1991 ""(Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs State of M.P. and another) praying for similar relief as sought for in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case may also be disposed off in the same terms and conditions.

5. Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, learned counsel for the State in the light of the order of the SAT as aforestated, submits

that after verifying the facts of the case, petitioner's case shall be considered.

6. In view of the foregoing and categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. if the Committee finds the petitioner suitable for the post in all respect, he shall be regularized on the post held by him and shall also pay him salary on regular scale. He shall be entitled to salary for the dates on break in service. His seniority shall be counted from the date of his initial appointment."

3. Subsequent to the orders passed by this Court the respondents seems to have constituted a Committee and thereafter the claim of the petitioner was duly considered and impugned order herein have been passed.

4. Challenge to the impugned order primarily is on the ground that this Court had disposed of the earlier round of litigation there was a clear instruction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in terms of the order passed by State Administrative Tribunal (for Short "SAT") in the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs. State of M.P. & Another in Original Application No. 1979/1991.

5. Contention of the petitioner was that the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi was similar to that of the petitioner and therefore their case also ought to have been considered on similar terms. Now when the impugned order has been passed consideration of the petitioner claim in the light of the S.K. Mandloi's case is not reflected. According to the counsel for the petitioner, when this Court had specifically ordered as regards the petitioners case to Mandloi's case and consider and pass a fresh order, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have considered the observations made by this Court and while doing so they ought to have kept in mind the observations made by SAT in the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi which again the impugned order is silent on.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned order deserves to be remitted back only on this ground that a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner strictly following the orders passed by this Court and also keeping in mind that claim of the petitioner quo as claim of the Satish Kumar Mandloi.

7. The State counsel, however opposing the petition submits that from the plain reading of the impugned order it is evidently clear that authorities concerned have considered the claim of the petitioner in terms of the observations made by this Court and have also taken note of another

judgment of this Court rendered in WPS 836/2019 which was decided on 08.02.2019, therefore the order passed by the respondents cannot be held to be fault with and it does not warrant any interference. Learned State counsel also submits that this Court also while having disposed of the earlier writ petition had left for the Committee to take a decision after due verification of facts and on verification, the respondents have reached to a particular conclusion on the basis of available records, therefore also the impugned order does not warrant interference.

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 petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner by constituting a Committee and evaluating the claim of the petitioner.

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 petitioner 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 petitioner is in parity with the status of the S.K.Mandloi and why the petitioner should not be given the benefit that has been extended to Satish Kumar Mandloi. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure P/1 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.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder