Hirendra Kumar Singh Rana v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

pmmdwmmSWW/t daed ..... ...... ..

é m

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH

AT BILASPUR W.P. (S! No. AIZ'W 2006 Petitioner / Hirendra Kumar Singh Rana, S/o Late Shri Mahesh Singh Rana, Aged about 43 years, Assistant Grade-3, Posted at Collector office (Land Revenue Record Section), Surguja, Ambikapur, '

Dist. Surguja (C.G.)

Versus

Resgondents r/ 1.

,State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Dept of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) X 2.

The Collector, District- Surguja (CG) Joint Director, Treasury & Accounts, Biiaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet WP No. 3854 of 2006 [01?

S.P.Chaurasia Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. WP 4124/2006, WP 4306/2006, 01/02/2017 Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG for the State.

Heard.

I "A L The lnterlocutory Applications for taking additional documents record all writ petitions are considered and allowed.

7i d:

List these cases tomorrow on top of the list for final disposal at motion stage.

\ "

V l Sd/- l l Prashant Kumar Mishra ', Judge 1'

l."

\, Ashu

I {O( NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR wp Mn, 3854 of 2006 - S.P.Chaurasia ---- Petitioner

Versus

- State Of Chhatti$garh & Ors.

---- Respondent And WP No. 41 24 0f 2006 - Hirendra Kumar Singh Rana ---- Petitioner Vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

---- Respondent And WP No. 4306 Of 2006 o Dhruv Kumar Tiwari ---- Petitioner Vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

---- Respondent Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Petitioners For Respondents-State Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG forthe State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Jeieee Order On Board

{0V 02IO2I2Q1 7 1.

Petitioners would can in question the legality and validity of the order Annexure P-15 passed by Collector, Surguja 05.01.2006 directing that petitioners, aii compassionate appointees, will be entitled for annual increment after attaining the age of 40 years for the reason that they have not passed the Hindi Typing Examination. 2.

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were granted compassionate appointment on the post of LDC (SP Chourasia); Clerk Grade-ll (Hirendra Kumar Singh Rana) and Clerk Grade-ll(Dhruv Kumar Tiwari) in the establishment of District Collectorate. Surguja on 27.011987, 06.01.1988 and 11.10.1994 respectively. The petitioners were duly allowed annual increment after one year of successful service, however, by the impughed order, the Collector, Surguja has directed for fixation of pay on regular scale only after attaining the age of 40 years, therefore, as a sequence, the pay hxation and increment paid to the petitioners prior to the impugned order is sought to be recovered and they are brought back to the pay scale on which they were initially appointed.

Referring to Clause 20 of the circular dated 10.06.1994 (Annexure R1) and Clause 3 of the circular dated 12.05.1993 which is referred impugned order, also, it argued that respondents have wrongly applied the directions contained in the circular to withdraw the pay-scale or the increment because the circular itself speaks that the candidate shall be regularized after 40 years of age or from the date of passing Hindi Typing Examination, but it nowhere provides for

@ non-admissibility of annual increment prior to said date.

The respondents have unnecessarily equated concept of regularization with grant of annual increment, which are two separate things.

4.

Perusal of the clauses of the circular referred by learned counsel for petitioners clear terms providing that compassionate appointees or any other appointee who has not cleared Hindi Typing Examination date of entry into the service as AG-lll shall have to pass the Hindi Typing Examination for regularization of their services or they will be regularized only after attaining the age of 4O years but it nowhere provides for non-admissibility of annual increment or withdrawal of increment already granted to such appointees.

Appointment of a person on compassionate ground on regular scale not to be confused with non-regularization of appointment for not passing Hindi Typing Examination and non payment of increment for the said period.

In the impugned order itself it is mentioned that the petitioners who ha've not cleared Hindi Typing Examination shall be regularized after attaining the age of 40 years, therefore, there was no necessity of issuing further direction that they shall be granted regular pay scale together with increment only after said regularization.

5.

Even othenlvise, in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasherf, the Supreme Court has held that any amount paid to a lowly paid employee more than 5 years back need not be (2014) 8 SCC 883 l

recovered.

The petitioners were appointed in the year 1987, 1988 and respectively, therefore, as on the date of impugned order they had completed more than years of service.

Thus'

applying principle Rafiq Masih (supra) as also terms of the circular referred preceding paragraphs.

impugned order not sustainable.

it deserves to be and is hereby quashed Consequent upon the quashing of the impugned order, the petitioners' pay scale together with increment payable to them shall be re-fixed in accordance with law.

SdlPrashant Kumar Mishra Judge l"

Ashu / my