Chattisgarh High Court
Nirasha Badhai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16647
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2415 of 2025
Digitally
1 - Nirasha Badhai W/o Mehtaru Ram Badhai Aged About 38 Years R/o
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.04.09
23:49:20
+0530
Village - Babudbena, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhavan, P.S. - Mandir-Hasaud, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education
Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Collector North Bastar Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda, Link Office -
Pankhajur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf
of Shri Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
09.04.2025
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following
relief(s):-
2. "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to quash the impugned
termination order (Annexure-P/1) dated
13/10/2008, passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat,
Koylibeda, Pakhanjur, as far as the
petitioner is concerned, and direct the
respondent authorities to reinstate the
petitioner in service and also grant him all
consequential benefits including the
monetary benefits w.e.f. the year 2008.
3. 10.2 Any other relief/direction,
as may be deemed fit in the fact and
circumstances of the case."
4. The brief fact of the case would reflect that the petitioner was
appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 17.01.2007 and he has
been terminated from the service along with various other Shiksha
Karmi Grade-III on the ground that they secured employment on the
basis of forged documents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
orders have been issued without complying with the provisions of
Rule 9 & 10 Shiksha karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition),
Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules, 1997"). As such, termination of
petitioner is bad in law. He would further submit that the co-ordinate
Bench of this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 has already examined
the facts involved and directed reinstatement of the petitioner
therein without back-wages. He would further submit that the issue
is squarely covered by the decision passed by this court in WPS No
6351 of 2019 wherein following observation was made :-
"7. Having considered the view of this
court in the aforesaid order and the fact
that it has based upon the earlier decision
of this court wherein it has been
specifically held that for terminating an
employee from service whose services are
governed under the Rules of 1999, it is
incumbent upon the respondents to have
initiated the proceedings as is required
under Rule 7.
8. Non-compliance of the said rule vitiates
the entire action on the part of the
respondents. The impugned order in the
instant case dated 29-6-2009 is, thus
unsustainable and the same deserves to
be and is accordingly set aside/quashed
with consequences to follow.
9.However, this court is of the view that
since the petitioners have not discharged
their duties during the intervening period,
they would not be entitled for the wages for
the intervening period. However, the said
period would be counted for the purpose of
continuity in service.
10. Needless to mention that since the writ
petition is being allowed on the ground of
non-compliance of Rule 7, the right of the
department would stand reserved if they
feel so may initiate proceedings in
accordance with the said rules".
6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that in view of above
factual matrix, it cannot be said that the action of competent
authority was unjustifiable or illegal and would pray for dismissal of
this writ petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
8. From the records, it is quite vivid that the procedure provided under
Rule 9 & 10 of the Rules, 1997 has not been followed and the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019 has
already examined the same issue. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the judgment
passed by this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019, these writ petitions
are allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court on WPS No
6351 of 2019 on 8-11-2021 directing reinstatement of the petitioner
without back-wages subject to verification of records and also
granting liberty to proceed further in accordance with applicable
Rules.
9. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of and pending
interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib
