Madan Ram Bara vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's grievance would be redressed if a direction was issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide his pending representation. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the lack of objection from the learned counsel for the State. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.11.2022 at the earliest, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, keeping in mind the State Government circular dated 04.08.2011. No specific finding was given on the merits of the appointment of the junior officer.
Facts
The petitioner, Madan Ram Bara, an Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court. His grievance was that a junior officer in the same cadre had been appointed as In-charge Officer, while the petitioner, being senior, was made to work under this junior. The petitioner relied on a State Government circular dated 04.08.2011, which stipulated that current charge of a senior post should not be given to a junior officer. The petitioner had submitted a representation to respondents No. 2 and 3 on 24.11.2022, but it remained undecided. He sought a direction for his representation to be considered and decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2022, in light of the State Government circular dated 04.08.2011, concerning the appointment of an In-charge Officer? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that a junior officer was appointed to a senior post, contrary to the State Government circular dated 04.08.2011. He contended that his representation, filed on 24.11.2022, had not been decided, and sought a direction for its disposal. He relied on the State Government circular dated 04.08.2011. Revenue's contentions: The State, represented by the panel lawyer, stated that as the petitioner was not pressing the writ petition on merits and was only seeking a direction to consider and decide his representation, they had no objection.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 111 of 2023 Madan Ram Bara S/o Shri Sukhra Ram Bara Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Bichpara, Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Commercial Tax-Gst, Mantalaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Commissioner Of Commercial Tax-Gst North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Joint Commissioner State Tax, Bilaspur Division-1, Near Civil Court, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 12/01/2023 Heard.
Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that one junior to the petitioner in cadre of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, has been made as In-charge Officer and petitioner though senior, is forced to work under
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.