State Of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramdeen Sarva

Facts

The State of Chhattisgarh, through its various departments and officers, filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated January 11, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 142 of 2024. In the original writ petition, the respondent, Ramdeen Sarva, a retired constable (Excise), had sought directions regarding the counting of his service for pensionary benefits. The Single Judge had directed that the respondent's service be counted from 1999, after completion of five years of service, relying on a State circular dated March 2, 2005, and a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment. The State argued that the circular was misinterpreted and that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity to file a reply. A previous writ appeal filed by the State against the Single Judge's order was dismissed, but the Division Bench granted liberty to file a review petition.

Held

The High Court allowed the review petition. The Court found that the impugned order dated January 11, 2024, passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 142 of 2024, was indeed passed without providing an opportunity to the State/respondent therein to file a reply. This procedural lapse was a significant factor in the Court's decision. The Court noted that the Division Bench, while dismissing the State's writ appeal, had specifically granted liberty to the State to file a review petition against the impugned order. Considering the contention of the State regarding the lack of opportunity to file a reply and the liberty granted by the Division Bench, the Court decided to recall the impugned order. The Court directed the Registry to restore Writ Petition (S) No. 142 of 2024 to its original number and list it as per the roster for further proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a party an opportunity to present their case, especially when liberty to seek review has been granted by a higher court, warrants recall to ensure due process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 11, 2024, passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 142 of 2024, which directed the counting of the respondent's service from 1999 for pensionary benefits, was passed without providing the State/petitioner herein an adequate opportunity to file a reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The State contended that the learned Single Judge misinterpreted the Circular dated March 2, 2005, which was intended for contingency-paid employees to count 10 years of service for regularization and pension under the Chhattisgarh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. They argued that the circular was wrongly applied to the respondent's case and that the order was passed without giving the State an opportunity to file a reply. They relied on the liberty granted by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 590/2024 to file this review petition. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the Circular dated March 2, 2005, itself directed the counting of service rendered as contingency service for granting pension. They also cited a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 88/2019 (Mubin Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) which upheld a similar view, and prayed for the rejection of the review petition.