Chattisgarh High Court
B.K. Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1538 of 2020
B.K. Sharma S/o Shri J.L. Sharma Aged About 66 Years R/o Mukut
Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education , Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Director Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Indrawati
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06/04/2022
1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an appropriate directions to the respondents for granting of the benefits that the petitioner should be provided with in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in WP No. 4059 of 2003 and WP No. 4060 of 2003 decided on 13.12.2017. The petitioner in the instant case were working in the School Education Department the services of the petitioner stood absorbed in the directorrate of public instruction vide order dated 25.07.2003. However, subsequently vide order dated 01.09.2003, the order of absorption dated 25.07.2003, stood canceled. The cancellation of the order of absorption was challenge in the aforementioned two writ petitions, both these writ petitions stood allowed on 13.012.2017. It would be relevant that at this juncture to quote the operative part of the order passed by this Court in the said two writ petitions:-
"11. Further, it is also necessary to mention that even if the said compliance has not been done, at least the impugned order by which the absorption was being cancelled should had been a more speaking order whereby the reasons and specific details would had been given, which compelled the State Government for the issuance of the impugned order. Even otherwise, in the absence of either of the two conditions stipulated above, the State Government at least should have conducted a preliminary enquiry on the basis of which the impugned order was required to be issued. It does not appear from the reply which has been filed by the State Government or from the stand taken by the State Government during the course of hearing that any of these conditions have been fulfilled. In the absence of such exercise being conducted by the State Government, this Court does not find the impugned order dated 01.09.2003 (Annexure P-6) to have been issued with any substantive material or basis to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and the consequences to follow."
The plain reading of the said order clearly indicates that the impugned order dated 01.09.2003 cancelling the order of absorption was set aside with specific direction to the respondents to provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.
2. The said order of this Court dated 13.12.2017 was not challenged any further and the same as since attained finality. The department has also taken a stand for implementation of the said order passed by this Court and have treated the petitioner to have stood absorbed in the directorrate of public instruction. The petitioner in the instant case during the pendency of the earlier two writ petitions before this Court crossed the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2016. Since the order dated 13.12.2017 has now attained finality the respondent/State also having decided to implement the order and the petitioner having cross the age of superannuation in between. The only issue that remains is what consequential benefits the petitioner would be entitled for. This Court while entertaining the present writ petition had issue notices to the respondent/State calling upon receipt of notice along with the reply that the respondents have filed in December, 2021, they have enclosed a document annexure R- 1 dated 23.11.2021. In the said order it stands reflected that with an intention of implementing the earlier order of this Court dated 13.12.2017, the respondents have already constituted a committee to ascertain the details of the consequential relief that the petitioners would be entitled for and also as to how the benefits have to be extended to the petitioners.
3. It goes without saying that once when the order dated 01.09.2003 stood quashed by this Court in the aforementioned two writ petitions vide its order dated 13.12.2017, the consequences of it would be that for all practical purposes it has to be presumed that the order dated 01.09.2003 i.e. the order dated of cancellation of absorption was not in existence. This in other word also means that since the order dated 01.09.2003 stood quashed, it has to be presumed that the petitioner continued as a regular employee absorbed under the directorate of public instruction. Hence he would be entitled for all the consequential benefits attached to this post on which he stood absorbed and he would also be entitled for all the benefits as such provided both so far as fixation of pay, revision of pay as also the promotional benefits, at par with his immediate junior in the directorrate of public instruction. Now that the respondents have constituted a committee this Court does not intend to keep the writ petition pending any further awaiting the report of the committee, the writ petition itself at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to take appropriate steps as may just in ensuring that the order of this Court dated 13.12.2017, passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions WP No. 4059 of 2003 and WP No. 4060 of 2003 is implemented in its letter and spirit without any further delay within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands partly allowed and disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Pawan