C7 I 5‘ \wL/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH 4é32 W.P. N0. /2004 PETITIONER Zahoor Mohammad S/o Late Noor Mohammad Aged 67 years Resi dent of Keshkal Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Caste Welfare Deptt., Raipur The Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. The Collector, Baster District, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Awmw FWILIMM. y —-é?:-'.»m-munu Nmowbkal v I The then Asstt. Commissioner Tribal Development, At present Asstt. Project Administrator, ' Kamar Project, Gariyaband, Distt.: Raipur (C.G.) 5. Asstt. Commissioner, ' Tribal Development, Baster District, Jagdalpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION ‘OF INDIA W Contd...P/2 4 V ” Xl-HC~78 wa>963 1mm Wm: 1112004 marm (W) mamirm 7‘ ammmmi'cs mmmmsr v mm#&@m mWma ww5-2065 , Cm a menficn being made, 'fi'e mm'rer is Tqken Up for hearing. Pefifioner‘ in person. Mr. €7.K. Eariwai, Depu‘h/ Advocam General for The 51‘m‘e/ respondeifrs. ‘ Heard. The pe‘fh‘ioner‘ has preferred fhis wrH‘ peTMen under AMicle 226/ 227 e'f fhe Consf§fu+ion of l‘mlia, wi’rh fhe prayer fha‘r a wrH’ of .cerfiorari quashing rhe impugned order con'rained in Annexure P42 be issued; a wrif ai‘ cer‘l’iomri quashhg fhe Qeparfmemal Enquiry es eon‘mined in Annexure P-ii be issJed; a wrif of mandamus direciing fne responden‘rs ‘m fix in Principe! grade as can‘mined in :Mmexures P‘3 éi P-4 be issued; direcf ihe respondenfs i0 ciarify The pension case and disburse a” effecfive emolume‘s and o'rher ciaims as conmined in Annexure P4: and direc’r ‘ihe ’ia’re Eovernmenf’io pravide scncm‘ion under Seciion i9? of 'i'he Cr.P.C. a ,coni'ained' in‘i’innexure P40. The case of 'i‘he pefifioner is Than“ he was appain’red in ’ihe mom‘ of guiy, 1962, in QQvernmenT service and an compieiion of 60 years of age, he reiired from The ‘i'r‘ibai h‘are Depar‘rmeni' on 31—3—1998 from Office of ihe Principai, Higher Secondary School, Orchha, DisTric’r: gas‘f'ar, Chha‘ifisgarh.. Due 1'0 e pendency of Deparf‘rnen‘fai Enquiry agains? The pe'ii‘l’ioner since Nov mher, 1987, pension and o’rher claims + - nr h e AK Xl-HC-78 mm amias w??€3k H2004 amm (W) mmmanéa 5g“ ‘x 31mm?!W am msmmiai ’ mmziwmn $Wméw are no? being sancfioned i’o him in sph‘e of several rep resenmfions made by him‘ The pefifianer sub iTTed an application To The Collecfon respondenf No.3 herein, on 10— —2003 regarding ciarificafion of pension] Deparfmenfal Enquiry and o'fhe pending claims. The pe‘rifioner was no? promofed in June, i984, bu? he ad filed a wri'r peiifion in The year\1985 before ihe High Cour? a? Jabai ur which was Transierred To ‘ihe Sfafe Adminisir'afive Tribunal, Slabalpiur, which came TO be decided on 13-9- 1Q95 direcfing fhe respondenis ‘ihe pe‘ri‘i‘ioner, ‘l‘he Depar'i'men'l' did no’l found ‘rhe peiifioner fh‘ for promo’rion, so TheDepartmenf passed order on 94—1998 (Annexure P—6), whereas "this order was for ihe period of i984, if has no concern wi‘lh ‘ihe promol'ion order. geing aggrieved, +he pefi‘lioner moved the governor applica’rion daTed 2i—7-2GO3 and nm‘ice (Annexure P-7), The respondenfs’ have no? "‘raken any ac’rion. En spi‘i'e of several cpporfunifies gram‘ed To respondem‘s no refurn has beer 2-2005vhfvir. 5andeep Dubey, hanel Lawver appeared on behalf of The STa'ie/responden‘rs. l On 25—2-2005 amendmenf was incorporafed and fhe Sfa‘ie/respondenfs were “direcied +0 file reply. On 22-3—2005 again re‘rurn was no’r filed, ifherefore, i5 days fime was granfed ‘ro The Sra‘i'e/respondenfs i0 rile re‘ru ~n. 1’0 consider The case of The pe'fifioner. On considerafion of *i’he case oi of Chhaf'risgarh for permission 1‘0 file criminal case, bm‘ despi‘re rhe rhe Sia‘re/ filed on Their behalf. Firsf of all on iG- On 5-4—2005 again las‘r oppor’mni‘ry m m'i ma 7 E200 27L was! qaas (W333) xmswwam'as \v gmmam z, mmW anésl WW#%W g 3 _ asa§wané2r was gran‘fea‘ +0 fhe responden‘ts +0 fiie refurn wifhin a period of four weeka‘, and if was made clear hm if The Pe'u‘um is no? fiied wifhin The s'i’ipuiafed fime, .‘rhe maf‘i’er‘ wil be decided in The absence ofre‘l’ur‘n. Therefore, in The above circun' sfcmces, fhés Cour'r is forced To decide This pe‘i‘ifion wi‘Hnou‘i' re'mm. As far as fhe‘case of fhe pe+i+ioner regarding fixa‘rion of pension cansider‘ing him as Principai is c<>ncerned, ihe said claim of The pe+iTioner was rejeci'ed by ‘fhe respondenis and i’r has been men‘i'ioned Tha‘i in View a’f ‘rhe arder of The STa'i-e A inis‘fr’ai’ive Tribunai, Annexure P-5, The case of 'ihe pefii‘ioner for p omoiion 0n “x‘he’pos‘i‘ of Principal was considered, and vide order def d 9-7-1998 fhe said ciaim was rejecfed affer considerdfion by ?he D parfmenfai Promohon Commif‘i'ee.‘ The pe‘rifioner filed an original appii afion before The SAT, Jabalpur, agains’r she order claied 12-9-1991 (An exure A—2) whereby-The promo’lion order daTed 30-7-1990 was canceiled. Vide order dafed 23—5-2002 (Annexure P-i7), The learned Tribunal reje Ted The requesT of The peTiTioner and iT washeld ThaT The app'licanT ha no case againsT Annexure A—2. IT was furTherwheld ThaT There are ry clear EovernmenT insTrucTions ThaT nobody should be promoTed ring The pendency of DeparTmenTal Enquiry. ET is clear ThaT The pr moTion order was passed due To mis‘l‘ake and. The order Annexure A-2 as been issued merely To correcT ThaT mistake. By The same ord r, The learned“ Tribunal direcTed The SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 d u XI~HC-78 m MW 5 mzoozk wvéLégl anéel mwyfaaa) , mammel *4 responden‘rs 1'0 decide 'rhe Dep from 'rhe da‘fe of receipf of cop) fhe enquiry has no‘i’ been ciecidec. Perusal of Annexure P—8 sen? by i'he Enquiry Officer To Mudhya Pradeshi Bhopal on 31—1 fha’r m decision has been “i1 unforfuncd‘e ’%’haf enquiry is per and even on expiry of 38 years afTer- order daTed 23-5—2002 (i enquiry be compie‘ied wi‘ihin a enquiry is “’mken‘ Therefore, in ”(he iigh‘r of The Chhm’risgarh Civii §ervices enii’ried for fuii pensiony howeve as per r‘ne provisions of clause {c in fhe circums‘mnces, (i) ’rhe pension case of fhe peTiTione 1’0 him in’accordonce wifh fhe ru order of rhe enquiry; and (ii) re: and pose final order in respeci mom‘hs from The da’i‘e of receip‘f of a copy of fhis order, in accordance L ;\’K‘ maWWm' ' mméwm mm1¥wm $Wan€21 ar'miem‘ol Enquiry wifhin ihree mon‘rhs ' of 'i’he order. However, even Till Today, xken on Tha‘i’ enquiry report ding against ’rhe pe‘i’i‘i’ioner since shows Thai findings of fhe enquiry was ‘lhe Commissioner, Tribal Developmen‘i, 2-1997, but i‘i appears from The record if is 1987, enquiry has no’r been conciuded. lnnexure P-17) passed by ‘l’he SAT Thai )eriod of 'l'hree mon‘l‘hs, no decision on proviso (b) 'fo sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of (Pension) Rules, 1976, The pefifioner is r, fha’f will be subjecf To The final order ) of sub-ruie (4) of Rule 9. respondenf No.3 is direcfed To decide :r gran'l‘ing him full pension as admissible es, however, ’rhaf will be subjeci' “ro final :pondenf No.2 is also direc‘i‘ed ’ro decide, of fhe enquiry wifhin a period of six Even XI~HC~78 mwm$ w?§—é§% mzoo ¢ marm (W) R5; 1d 3113272m&=m5~ " amanéemitmi \ mmifwm $31§qsnéar mmvfwma wifh sub-rule (2) (a) af Qule 9 of‘fhe Chhm‘fisgarh Civil Sarvices (Pension) Rules, 1976. ‘ If r16 order is passed within ihis period iheii ‘the ‘ enquiry shaii be freafed as mashed. As menfioned earlier, anquiry againsf ihe pe‘ii‘iioner is panding since 1987, and The responderifs are i'loi' i‘akii'ig any decision ca ‘ihm‘ em! iry. ‘i—her‘efor’e, if is LmjuST, unfair and V unreasonable 1‘0 aHow “fhe mquir 1'0 remaim panding for indafini’ra peried. Hence, ihe regponden‘rs are a! '0 direc’i‘ed To consider The case of The pei‘ifioner for ofher r'e'iiml '9 viefifs admissible ’ro him, in accordance wiih law, wifhin a period of “‘rh ee monThs frem The daTe of receipi’ of copy of This order. As for as quoshing ihe o derv dated 12~9-1991 (Annexure P—12) in which if has been men‘iioned . m“ 'ihe pe‘ii’rioner was no? enTi’ried for promo‘fion on accounf‘o‘f pende cy of enquiry is concerned, if The final order is noT passed on enquiry wi‘l‘hin six monihs, in ”ihaT case, in ”the iigh‘r of The above order The r pondenTs shall consider The case of The peTiTioner as To wheTher seTTi g apurT The enquiry parT The peTiTioner was enTiTled for promo-hon on T e posT of Principal, and The respondenTs shouldconsider The case of peTiTioner in respecT of The posT of Principal and conseduenTly, if T e peTiTioner is found fiT for promoTion and is promoTed, Then hispensi n case shall be considered accordingly. However, The-peTiTioner as noT been able To place on record any sufficienT maTerial upon which his CourT can direc‘l’ The responden'l’s To T e Xl—HC-78 £3 wm-a; w?$ mgtwmafw) Immwwésr "é_ consider for issuance sf sane Hence, m such direcfion can be given. WWh The above observcnions and dirac‘rions The pem'ion sfands disposed of. ParTies are em’h‘led for ce mq'ww aiWmeT m fion under secfion 197 o-f The Cr.P.C. rTified copy of ’rhis ,‘ b Sédl- LQBHADOO Judge m