State Of Chhattisgarh vs. Smt. Anita Sharma

Facts

The State of Chhattisgarh, through its Excise and Finance Departments and various officers, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated February 5, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Anita Sharma, whose late husband, Shri Taran Prasad Sharma, was initially appointed as an Excise Salesman in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in 1994. After the bifurcation of Chhattisgarh, his services came under the State of Chhattisgarh and were later regularized as a Constable in 2008. He retired in 2023 and passed away shortly thereafter. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge based on a previous writ appeal decision (W.A. No. 88 of 2019) that granted similar benefits. The State argued that the previous case was distinguishable and that they did not have an opportunity to file a reply in the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that since the State had not filed any return/reply to the writ petition and the arguments now being raised before the writ appeal court were not raised before the learned Single Judge, these contentions could not be taken into consideration at the appellate stage. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellant/State was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the State to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge to raise all the grounds that were presented in the writ appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the State's arguments regarding the applicability of Rule 4(2)(b) or the distinguishability of the precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition without considering the State's contentions and without a reply being filed by the State in the writ petition, particularly when the State argues that the facts are distinguishable from the precedent relied upon? Contentions: Petitioner/State: The order of the writ appeal (W.A. No. 88 of 2019) is distinguishable from the present case. The State did not get an opportunity to file a reply in the writ court, and the writ petition was allowed solely on the petitioner's contention. The State contends that Rule 4(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 1977, requires completion of 5 years of service for temporary status and counting of service for pension. Therefore, the Single Judge's finding that service prior to regularization should be counted for pensionary benefits is contrary to law. The State also points to dismissal of identical matters (WA Nos. 552 of 2024 and 528 of 2024) by the same Bench. Respondent/Writ Petitioner: (Not recorded in the judgment).