Sangram Singh Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4 on I.A.No.01 of 2022, which is an application for condonation of delay of 919 days in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3876 of 2018.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to note that a reply to this application was filed by respondents No.1 to 4 on 17.02.2023. It should have been a reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 as respondent No.4 had filed a separate reply.

The confusion may have arisen because in the cause title of the appeal as was originally filed, five respondents were shown including the Secretary, Education Department as respondent No.2, who was not a party to the proceedings and therefore, by an order dated 22.07.2022, the erstwhile respondent No.2 [the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atalnagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)] was struck-off and array of parties were re-numbered.

Challenge in the writ petition was to an order dated 21.06.2012 by which the services of the petitioner as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II were terminated and to an order dated 29.05.2017 by which the order dated 21.06.2012 was affirmed.

The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of termination dated 21.06.2012 and the order dated 25.09.2017, observed in paragraph 18 as follows:-

“18. The petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits of seniority and the respondents in this regard are directed to ensure that the petitioner is granted seniority immediately within an outer limit of 60 days and be placed at par with the persons, who have been appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II from the same recruitment. However, it is ordered that the petitioner would only be granted notional fixation and notional seniority. He would not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the previous period and he would be entitled for the same only from the date of joining.”

The present writ appeal is, accordingly, filed questioning the denial of monetary benefits.

A perusal of paragraph 18 of the order dated 22.04.2019 would amply demonstrate that in no uncertain terms, the learned Single Judge had held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the previous period and that he would be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of joining.

In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the appellant was under an impression that monetary benefit was not declined by the learned Single Judge and that it came to the knowledge of the appellant only on 11.02.2020 when a communication was received from the respondents stating that in terms of the order of the Court he is not entitled to monetary benefits for the period for which he was out of service. Accordingly, it is stated in the application that cause of action for preferring the writ appeal had arisen only on 11.02.2020. The appellant has also referred to COVID-19 pandemic as one of the reasons for delay that had occasioned.

Relying on the stand taken in the respective replies, Ms.Shukla and Mr.Ahluwalia submit that no case is made out for condoning the delay of 919 days. It is further submitted by them that the plea that he was unaware of the contents of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not believable inasmuch as the appellant is teaching students of Higher Secondary level. Even if some latitude is shown for the period during which COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak, even then, there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, they contend.

We are inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents.

The stand taken by the appellant that cause of action in preferring the writ appeal arose only on 11.02.2020 is wholly misconceived. The plea put forward that the appellant was ignorant of that part of the order by which monetary benefits was denied to him, is difficult to accept, considering the the fact that the appellant is a teacher teaching at the Higher Secondary level.

Though question of delay is required to be considered liberally, we are of the considered opinion that present is not a fit case for condoning the delay as no acceptable explanation has been furnished by the appellant.

Taking that view, I.A.No.01 of 2022 is dismissed. Resultantly, the writ appeal is also dismissed.