Chattisgarh High Court
The Commissioner vs Ajay Singh Thakur on 5 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:38636-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.05
19:04:34
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 551 of 2025
1 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Ajay Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri G.S. Thakur Aged About 33 Years
Occupation Fireman, Grade - I I,
2 - Vijay Chouragade, S/o Shri Rekhchand Chouragade Aged About
33 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
3 - Amit Kumar Koshle S/o Shri Narottam Koshle Aged About 30
Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I.
4 - Sanjay Kumar Sidar, S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 39 Years
Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I.
5 - Jitendra Kumar Bhatt S/o Late Shri Shatruhan Prasad Bhatt Aged
About 32 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
6 - Laxmi Narayan Verma S/o Shri Hemray Verma Aged About 41
Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
2
7 - Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Mahraji Ram Surojiya Aged About 34
Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade -I I
8 - Devendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Shobha Ram Kashyap Aged
About 33 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
9 - Hemant Kumar Thakur , S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Thakur Aged
About 29 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
10 - Shiv Kumar Khunte S/o Shri Nankoo Ram Khunte Aged About
33 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
11 - Khuman Singh Verma , S/o Shri Khedan Ram Verma Aged About
37 Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I
12 - Rajesh Kumar Gayakwad S/olate Shri Lakhanlal Aged About 40
Years Occupation - Fireman, Grade - I I,
13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
14 - The Director General, Home Guards, C.G. Emergency Services
And State Disaster Response Force (Sdrf), District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant :
For Respondent No. 1 to 12:
For Respondent/State :
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
05.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant
as well as Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 12 and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an
application for condonation of delay.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the
considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the
application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay
of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPS No. 2870 of 2018 (Ajay Singh Thakur and others vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single
Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondents
No.1 to 12/writ petitioner herein.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
respondents No.1 to 12 is the writ petitioners in the original writ
petition and respondents No. 13 & 14 are State authorities and
employer of the writ petitioners and under the definition of State
provided under Article 12 of Constitution of India. He further
submits that in the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 to 12/writ
petitioners challenged the order relating to the merger of
employees into the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF),
contending that they were not formally merged, but merely
deputed to the SDRF without obtaining their prior consent.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners were
initially appointed to the post of Fireman Grade-II under the
establishment of the appellant/Municipal Corporation and were
discharging their duties accordingly. He also contended that with an
objective to enhance fire safety measures and ensure prompt
emergency response, the State Government, vide circular dated
24.03.2017, decided to establish a dedicated department titled the
State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) for Fire and Emergency
Services.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that a plain reading of Annexure P/3 (in the writ petition) clearly
reveals that all Fire Services functioning under various Municipal
Corporations and Municipalities across the State were to be merged
into the newly constituted SDRF. Consequently, all posts,
employees, and related administrative control pertaining to Fire
Services were to be transferred to the SDRF from their respective
Urban Local Bodies, including the appellant-Municipal Corporation.
He would submit that the fact remains that as per the Annexure P/3
(in the writ petition) all the fire services has been handed over to
the SDRF and as such, there is no place/post/ need wherein the
respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners can be allocated.
Therefore, the judgment needs to be reviewed and revisited.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of
the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the
respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners were transferred to the
SDRF as part of a State-wide policy decision involving structural
reorganization of Fire and Emergency Services, which included the
merger of all Fire Service personnel from Municipal Corporations
and Municipalities into the SDRF. He further contended that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the
appellant-Municipal Corporation to relieve and accommodate the
respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners, overlooks this critical
policy context as well as the factual position that the appellant
presently has no sanctioned or vacant posts to absorb the
respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners. The said direction is thus,
not only contrary to the administrative for scheme, but also
impracticable implementation. Hence, the present writ appeal
deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for
respondents No.1 to 12/writ petitioner submits that the learned
Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has
rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 1
to 12/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgment and materials available on record.
10. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held
that taking into consideration the fact that the State in its affidavit
filed on 27.03.2025 (in the writ petition) has declined to absorb the
services of the respondents No. 1 to 12/writ petitioners with
respondent No. 14 department herein, respondent No. 14 is
directed to relieve the respondents No.1 to 12/writ petitioners
immediately from the present place of posting to their parental
department. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 14
herein within a period of 20 days from 11.04.2025. Appellant herein
is directed to extend all benefits for which the respondents No. 1 to
12/writ petitioners are entitled which could not be extended on
account of deputation.
11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also
considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while
disposing off the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to
12/writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep
