e«as& .).^ s/ •yT Slnai& Bench' A \' c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl NoF ' l /2006 PETITIONER -/ Bhimrao Meshram aged about ^-.?" ^^''^y' ^y-^--"' <^>?r /-"" ''^^••""' REgPONDENTS years, S/o Late Shri Mehtarial Meshraia, R/o Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Koriya VERSUS ..^<^ ^y',j<K .-••''' Meshram, R/o Tahsil Office ...'^ Lp' ..•" ^^' ^ ^^ V- 3>' o--^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh throughi^' Secretaiy, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bha-wan, Raipur 3. The Collector, Koriya /" 4. Chief Engineer, Water Resources. Departinent, Bhopal, M.P. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITCTION OF INDIA ^•3 - Aff^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WR!rPETITION_{Sl NQ.5445_0£2006 PETITIONER Bhimrao Meshram RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the orders on the _tiday of January, 2011 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge yf"^ \ ff R'-~.--... 1 1 >i!S'3« S! i T~"y/ '"^^'^y '^&.Ss^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5445 OF 2006 Bhimrao Meshram RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petitions under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocatefor the State. (Delivered onthis ^c?'day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of order dated 27-09-2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Collector, Koriya, by which the service of the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner has been appointed on 'the post of Peon in the Department ofWater Resource on 12-10-1989. The petitioner was declared as surplus employee in Rajiv Sagar Pariyojana, Upsambhag, Katangi, District-Balaghat. On 2-6-2000 (Annexure P/1), the respondent authorities issued a letter to the effect that the vacant posts of the Revenue Department will be filled by the surplus employees of Rajiv Sagar Pariyojana, Upsambhag, Katangi, District-Balaghat. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed tosubmit all the relevant documents. Thereafter, by order dated 24-6-2000 (Annexure P/2), the service of the petitioner has been absorbed in the Revenue Department. Vide letter dated /'ra'^ .^ '•^ s': '^.•,,,,^..,-^^; 14-3-2001 (Annexure P/3) the Collector, Koriya asked the petitioner to produce certain documents for considering his case for grant of promotion. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the gradation list ofWater Resources Department and was included in the gradation list of Revenue Department. All of a sudden, the services of the petitioner was reverted to the Rajiv Sagar Pariyojana, Upsambhag, Katangi, District-Balaghat declaring him as a surplus employee and by the impugned order, the service of the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. Thus, this petition. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is not a surplus employee of the Revenue Department. The impugned order has been passed without obtaining the consent from the petitioner and even the matter was not placed before the Central Government for its approval. The petitioner is a class-IV employee and having three children who are prosecuting their studies in Chhattisgarh. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. The same is just and proper because the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized in the Revenue Department, therefore, the petitioner has been repatriated to his original department. Copy of the appointment letter has not been filed by the petitioner to »•- establish the fact that he was appointed oh regular basis or on daily wages basis. In fact, the service of the petitioner was not absorbed in the Revenue Department, therefore, the question of regularization and promotion does not arise at all. Since the petitioner was declared as a surplus employee in Rajiv Sagar Pariyojana, Upsambhag, Katangi, District-Balaghat, he was sent back to this parent department. The consent of the Central Government is not necessary in case of surplus employees. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 1 have learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Two days time was granted to file written submission on the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, no written submission has been filed. On the basis of documents produced, it is found that by order dated 24-6-2000 (Annexure - P/2) the petitioner was absorbed in the Revenue Department on the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660- 60-3200 by the Collector, Koria. The order reads as under: "tITfricp 5027/f^TCr-'WT/2000, TTOffO WTR Wqpq WIRH R*tFT ^ 5lTtR slpHjct>-586/^ft-^-650/ 2000, tffcncT, Rr1l* , 11/4/2000 WO '?IT'Er;T 'ilul'W 'RWT cfe sTFR **lich-3210/^m-4/2000, 'trftTR R-l|cb 25.5. 2000 Tf f^z( T^ y|c|&||^' -^ STg^TN <ft ifttRT^T TfWn, •^1 (3T^O'5(lf?r) ^TuftcT WT? 4R'l||u1'1l 'OTWIFT—4, 'cfiS^ (ul<?tl—6|lcl|t|ic ^jTcT 'sFRHER f^TTT ^T ^•1^11.1 ^Ttt 2550-55-2660- 60-3200/- CTRTtTI? 'erSTT 'WTiT-WTO TR 'STT'FFT grcr '^fter 'titvf TTC w?^i' f^Tm tt <Li'RRi'y^ ^fTsn •3TTm t| ^pSf TRWTTF[T Tf ^T ufRft tl cprafv\v 2- ^ft iftq^TcT tfWT, 'FTtq ^PT '(luf'M fETqpT 4 'H'Rfd^'l ?Trt ^R 'ERR f'N^T, clRtddl 'cpT 1r[srf^T, ypt ^R ^r <?)ciiycM ^r ^i ^^3 sft? ^ 1TC' TR Pl^f^l ~^\ ^FS c^ ^E[ c|?|' •^n' c^ <A|c|&ll-l (^cTT •4T) cra-fT ^e€t snf^ ^ •qpT?r ^ TTOHO WfF} >HI*11"t| TRTNH f?PTTT ^ sTPT'T tCTfcp-486/1040/1/(3) 72, •tTtTTT5T, R-lf* 19 ^dT^, 1973 4 R?t TT^ yid&ll'D' c^ Sf^A^ f^qr v\\v,'\\ i" 8. The respondent has not contradicted the order dated 24-6-2000 by producing any subsequent document or notings in the file except by making a statement that "it has been wrongly mentioned in Annexure P-2 that the petitioner has been absorbed in the Revenue Department." Thereafter, a communication dated 23-8-2006 (Annexure - R/1) was issued to the Collector by the Under Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department that the surplus employees may be returned back to their original department. On this basis, it appears that, the petitioner has been declared as a surplus employee. The respondent State has not produced any document in support of its contention that since the petitioner was not absorbed in service, he was declared as a surplus employee, as is the case of the respondent State. Therefore, declaring the petitioner as a surplus employee has no basis, as the petitioner became the employee of the Revenye Department as a consequence of the order dated 24-6-2000. .^.•-^' "a ~~~\ 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, declaration of the petitioner as a surplus employee and then allocating to some other place i.e. Balaghat (State of Madhya Pradesh) is without any basis or substance. It is also held that the petitioner continuous to be an employee of the Revenue Department and is entitled to all the benefits including seniority. 10. So far as the question of regularization is concerned, the issue has not been raised and contested and, as such, no finding is recorded on this issue. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A