Awadh Bihari Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents.

This appeal is preferred against an order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 538 of 2021, whereby, the

writ petition was dismissed.

This appeal is accompanied by I.A. No. 1 of 2022, which is an application for condoning the delay of 330 days.

The appeal was filed on 20.12.2021.

In view of period of limitation being extended because of ‘Covid-19’ pandemic by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Registry has given a

note that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation. I.A. No. 1 of 2022, accordingly, stands disposed of.

The appellant is a retired Lecturer of Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa.

The petitioner in the writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to rectify his date of regularization in service from 04.07.1986 to

10.02.1986 and grant him seniority as well as retiral dues accordingly. Prayer was also made for setting aside of an order dated 18.05.2020 by which

the prayer made by the petitioner for correcting date of regularization was rejected.

Mr. Tripathi submits that in his service-book as well as in the gradation list, the petitioner’s date of joining is recorded as 10.02.1986 and

therefore, the respondents have committed illegality in not counting his earlier service as an Ad-hoc Teacher from 10.02.1986 to 04.07.1986 while

regularizing the service of the petitioner.

The learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had received all the benefits and periodical promotions accepting his date of appointment to be

04.07.1986 and no objection was raised by the petitioner all throughout and that the issue is sought to be raised after his retirement.

It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that service of the petitioner was discontinued on 30.04.1986, and thereafter, he was re-appointed

with effect from 02.07.1986 onwards and thus, there was a break in service.

A copy of the order dated 04.05.1988 by which service of the petitioner was regularized reflects that his date of regularization is indicated as

04.07.1986.

When the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 04.07.1986, assuming that in the service-book or in the gradation list, the same

is recorded as 10.02.1986, the same has to be understood as a ministerial error.

We see no good ground to take a view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge, more so, because of the stale claim made by the

petitioner, and accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.