State Of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramdeen Sarva

Facts

The appellants, the State of Chhattisgarh and its excise and finance departments, are appealing an order dated January 11, 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 142 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, Ramdeen Sarva, who was initially appointed as an Excise Salesman in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in 1994. His services were regularized on the post of Constable in Chhattisgarh in 2008. The respondent sought benefits based on his initial appointment date, citing a previous writ appeal (W.A. No. 88 of 2019) where similar benefits were granted. The State's primary contention is that the previous writ appeal is distinguishable and 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 reply or return to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, and the arguments now being raised in the writ appeal were not presented before the Single Judge, these contentions could not be considered at the appellate stage. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellant/State was dismissed. However, the Court granted the State liberty 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 interpretation of Rule 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Rules or the applicability of W.A. No. 88 of 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition based on the respondent's contentions without the State having filed a reply, thereby potentially violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and interpretation of service rules). Contentions: Petitioner/Respondent (Ramdeen Sarva): Argued that the learned Single Judge rightly disposed of the writ petition after considering all aspects, and no interference is called for. Relied on W.A. No. 88 of 2019 for similar benefits. Appellants/State: Argued that the order in W.A. No. 88 of 2019 is distinguishable. Contended that Rule 4(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Services Rules, 1977, grants temporary status only after 05 years of service, and subsequent service is counted for pension. Argued that the Single Judge's finding that service prior to regularization counts for pensionary benefits is contrary to law. Also cited dismissal of identical matters in WA Nos. 552 of 2024 and 528 of 2024.