[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kamleshwar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:12512
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 103 of 2020
1 - Kamleshwar Tiwari S/o Shri Ramvyas Tiwari Aged About 61 Years R/o
Mahuapara, Phundudihari, Post Navapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted As Varisht Antrik Lekha Parikshan Evam
Kararopan Adhikari, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Ambikapur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Balrampur, District
Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - S.P.Kushwaha S/o Late Shri R.D. Kushwaha, Aged About 51 Years
Presently Posted As Varisht Antrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan
Adhikari, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Developmet, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Ambikapur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Kayum Khan S/o Late Shri Shamir Khan Aged About 61 Years Presently
Posted As Varisht Antrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari, Janpad
Panchayat Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Ambikapur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Ramdev Patel S/o Late Shri Puranlal Aged About 66 Years Resident Of
Village Sarhari, Post Kewara, Thana And Tehsil Partappur, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Kameshwar Yadav S/o Late Shri Vasudev Prasad Yadav Aged About 63
Years Resident Of Village Sapda, Post Dumardih, Gram Panchayat Lundra,
District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Developent, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Rural Development, Ambikapur, District
Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Amit Buxy, Deputy GA.
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
16/03/2026 :
1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in these writ
petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, this
Court, vide order dated 12.7.2018 passed in WPS No.6182/2010 & other
connected matters, quashed the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure-P/1
therein) reserving the right of the respondents to initiate fresh
proceedings so far as the status of the petitioners is concerned after
giving an opportunity of hearing.
3. Facts of the case are that the post of Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari
was declared as dying cadre by the State of Chhattisgarh and the said
post was re-classified as Sahayak Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam
Kararopan Adhikari. However, the said post was again divided into
three categories and classified as Sahayak Aantrik Lekha Parikshan
Evam Kararopan Adhikari; Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan
Adhikari and Varishth Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan
Adhikari. By order dated 27.8.2009, the petitioners were appointed on
the post of Varishth Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari.
However, the respondents by order dated 15.7.2010 reduced the rank
and pay of the petitioners, which was the subject matter in WPS
No.4800/2010 & other connected matters. The coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 12.7.2018 quashed the order dated 15.7.2010 to
the extent of petitioners' status as also their pay scale, and the right of
the respondents was reserved to initiate fresh proceedings so far as the
status of the petitioners is concerned after giving an opportunity of
hearing. However, the respondents by impugned order (Annexure-P/1)
dated 10.12.2019 revoked/cancelled the order dated 27.8.2009. Feeling
aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Writ Petitions have been
preferred.
4. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the competent authority of the respondents was not justified in passing
the impugned order, as it did not decide the issue of reduction of rank
and pay of the petitioners and straightway non-speaking order was
passed. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
7. A careful perusal of the record would show that in the first round of
litigation, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 15.7.2010 was
challenged successfully by the petitioners, which was quashed, as the
same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and the right of the respondents was reserved to initiate fresh
proceedings so far as the status of the petitioners is concerned. However,
the respondents issued notice and simply revoked the order dated
27.8.2009. Therefore, the question remains whether the competent
authority of the respondents was justified in revoking the order dated
27.8.2009, as the issue with regard to the petitioners' post as Varishth
Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Adhikari has not been
considered and decided.
8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated
10.12.2019 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2
to decide the said question within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners, in accordance with law.
9. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated
above. No costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Barve
