é i ‘ 1 ’ i Petitzio:ners: a § i l i .x :1 % i Resporidents: ; ‘ WRIT PE:TITIN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF R INDIIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS/ ORDERS/ $61202 @@ BILASPURI W.P(S) No¥§§§2009 / TR. Jangde “if %/o Late Moolchand Jangde, Aged about 52 £Iears ‘\‘-. R/o Behind Ind5ian Gas Godown, Chhote Attamolda, TV Tower, Raigarh (PO & Dist), / CG State. § x Versus 4) State of Chhatisfgarh, , Through : Secretary, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur, CG State. /2) The Chief Conservator of Forest, « Aranya Bhawan, i Medical CollegeRoad, ' Raipur CG State. DIRECTIONS ETC. zBEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OR CHHATISGARH AT HlbH COURT OF CHHA1TISGARH : BILA$PUR E 3 WRIT PETITION (S)‘ NO.1082 OF 2009 ' PETITIONER: _ T.K. Jangde Versus RESPONDENT; ‘ . State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petiiion under Article 226/227 0f thé Constitut on of Indla) Slng|e Bench Hon ble Shrl Satlsh K Agnlhotrl J Present :- Shn K R Nair Advocate forthe petitioner Shn P K Bhadurl Panel Lawyer for the State. x. ORDER (ORAL) I (Passed on this 215‘ day of February, 201:1) " - the petitioner preferred an appeal before the then Government of x ‘ ‘ . Madhya Pradesh on 19 10 2000 (Annexure — P/8) Thereafter the / \nw State o Cattlsgarh was carved ot pursuant o he opatio e f hh u t t ern 1. Heard Iearned counsel for the parties ‘\ 2. By this xpetition the petitioner seeks to challenge the legallty and validity of the order dated 26-8-2000 (Annexure —;P/6) passed by the Under $e’cretary to the then Government of :Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, by which the petitioner has been remoVed from service The petitioner also challenges the order dated 8 7 2008 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisagarh Department of Forest by which the l \ appeal preferred by the petitioner against the removal order has been rejected \ gag ‘ 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petittoner submits that while the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger at Raigarh a charge sheet dated 20—8-1991 (Annexure —'P/4) was'issued to him by leveling certain allegations to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 13 8 1998 (Annexure — P/5) However after completion of enqUIry proceedings by order dated 26—8-2000 (Annexure ’— P/6) the petitioner has beenremoved from the‘service f . 4. Learned counsel further submits that against the said removal order ,!M_ of the MP. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short “the Act, 2000") on 1 11-2000 Subsequently,7the services of the petitioner has been finally ailocated to the State of Chhattisgarh On the ba5ls of the said events the appeal pending before the State of Madhya Pradesh as required to be transferred to the State of hhattisgarh however instead of transferring the same the State of Madhya Pradesh by Its orderi dated 16-9-2005 (Annexure — P/1 2) rejected the appeai of the) petitioner by maintaining the removal order. Shrl Nair submlts that after allocation of the serVIces of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh there is no master and servant relationship between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the ' petitioner Therefore the order dated 16—9-2005 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is not at all sustainabie in the eye of law as the State of Madhya Pradesh has no Jurisdiction to deCide the V appeal of the petitioner after allocation of his sewices to the State of Chhattisgarh By raismg all the grievances the petitioner approached the State of Chhattisgarh by filing a fresh appeal however the same has been rejected by the order dated 8-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) holding that the second appeal is not maintainable The impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled prinCIples of law On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities and also submits that the same have been passed rightly, which do not warrant any interference of this Court On perusal of the documents it is crystal clear that against the gremoval order the petitioner preferred an appeal on 19-10-2000 before the State of Madhya Pradesh however pursuant to the "reorganisation of the State the serVices of the petitioner was V . allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh thus the authorities of the ' ' i w State pf Madhya Pradesh instead of deciding the appeal of the pe'titi‘orijer on 16-9-2005, the same ought to have been tranéferred‘t the State of Chhattisgarh, but the same has not been done, which i against the weii-settied principles of law and without any Jurlsdiction Section 83 of the Act 2000 prOVIdes for transfer of roceeding ps pendlng before the authorities to the other State wherein the employee has been transferred. In the case on hand, the appeai was pfeferred before creation of State of Chhattisgarh and the same ought to have been automatiCalIy transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh for con5ideration of appeal and deCI3ion 9. cti 83 of the Act 2000 reads as under Seon “83 Transfer of pending proceedings — (1) Every proceeding pending immediateiy before the app0inted day before a court (including High Court) ribunal, authority or officer in any area Which on tha day falls within the State of Madhya Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating excluswely to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Chhattisgarh State stand transferred to the orresponding court tribunal, authority or officer of thé State of Chhattisgarh. 3 3 t t i ; c ‘ proceeding (2) should If any question stand transferred arises as to whether under sub- an section (1) it shall be referred to the High Court o Madhya Pradesh and the de0i3ion of that High Cour shall be final in this Section— (a) “proceeding" includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b) “corresponding court, trunal, authOrity orr officer" in the State of Chhattisgarh means- (i) the court, tri authority or officer in which, or before whom, the proceeding w0uld have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day; or '(ii) in. case of doubt, such court tribunal authority, orofficer in the State of Chhattisgarh as may be determined after the, appomted day by he (3) o s y f - t ib bunal, t g? (26Q9) 2'sc‘c 3H5 ‘ may be or beforé the appomted day by the Government of the eXIstIng State of Madhya Pradesh to be the corresponding court trlbunal authorlty rofflcer i With regard to the questron of Jurlsdlctlon the Supreme Court In Chandrabhal K BhOIr and Others v Krishna Aljun Bhorr and Others observed that 10._' 2 “26 ..... in any vrew of the matter an order passed Without . Jurlsdlctron would be a nullrty it wrll be a coram non judlce ; It Is non est In the eye of the Iaw PrInCIpIes of res judlcata ‘ would not apply to such cases (See Chief Justice of A P v , L VA Drxrtulu Union of Indla v Pramod Gupta and National Institute of Technology v Nrraj Kumar Srngh) " In View of foregomg, applymg the well-settled prmciples of Iaw and > wrthout expressmg any oprnlon on the ments of the case the order dated 16-9-2005 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh Is quashed as non est m the eye of the Iaw 12. The competent authorlty under the prowsrons of the Act 2000 Is the State of Chhattlsgarh and as such the appeal before the State of Madhya Pradesh ought to have been decrded by the State of Chhattlsgarh The second appeal frled subsequently by the , petrtroner was rightly rejected by the State of Chhattlsgarh as not mamtalnable Accordingly, the State of Chhattlsgarh Is directed to constder and decrde the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the then State of Madhya Pradesh on 19-10-2000 (Annexure — P/8) afresh accordance wrth law and on Its own merits as early as possrble preferably wrthln a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thrs order 1 -ln the result the writ petition Is allowed to the above extent No 4.. s order asto cost ( s 1 i ’ Judge l I 1 i ‘ SatlshK Agmhotrl s