1 2025:CGHC:17800-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 253 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Pashudhan Vikas, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Block No. 3, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 2) 3 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Koni Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.4) ... Appellants versus 1 - Chandra Kumar Singh S/o K.K. Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Deleted (Ravi Kumar Singh) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 09-04-2024). 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Urla, Post - BMY Charouda, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.O.P.Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.24 10:35:22 +0530 2 21.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferenecing. 2. Heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellants as well as Mr.Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.O.P.Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 181 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No.01/2025, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 6.8.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.4803 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed the original writ petitioner / father of respondent No.1 herein was allowed. 6. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.1982, deceased writ petitioner late Ravi Kumar Singh was appointed on the post of Livestock Development Demonstration Organizer by the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit. Thereafter, in the year 1999, a policy decision was taken by the State Government to abolish the post of Milk Commissioner of Dairy Department and as a result of which the employee of M.P. 3 Milk Federation including late Ravi Kumar Singh who was under the Milk Commissioner, were declared surplus. A policy decision was taken to deploy the surplus employees of M.P. Milk Federation in the department of Animal Husbandry on deputation and by virtue of the said decision, an order dated 12.04.1999 was issued whereby deceased petitioner Ravi Kumar Singh was deployed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) and since he has been continuously working and after reorganization of the State, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Animal Husbandry where his seniority was maintained. 7. In the year 2013, the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. came into existence and in the said establishment, he was never appointed and employed, however, without any authority, the impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2019 has been issued thereby declaring the date of retirement of the deceased writ petitioner to be 30.06.2019 as on the said date, late Ravi Kumar Singh has attained the age of 60 years. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2024, against which, this writ appeal. 8. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure A/1) is perverse, unjust and unreasonable and against the well settled 4 principle of law, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure A/1) has been passed without appreciating the correct facts of the case and hence, the same deserves to be set aside. Learned Single Judge ought to have seen the fact that it was the duty of the writ petitioner to establish his lien with the State Government by way of specific order of absorption, but the writ petitioner has failed to produce any such order whereby his services have been absorbed into the State Government. Since he was never an employee of the State Government, therefore, he would not be eligible to work till the age of 62 years, but the aforesaid facts have been overlooked and not appreciated by learned Single Bench and the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in order to justify and prove the relationship between the writ petitioner and respondent No.2/ Federation as employee and employer, the appellants respectfully submit that it is admitted fact that in the year 1982 the writ petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Livestock Development Demonstration Organizer vide order issued by the MD, M.P. Dugdha Mahasamngh (Sahakari) Maryadit, Bhopal copy of which is filed as Annexure A/2 and was posted in the office of the M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh (Sahakari) Maryadit, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur which was under the Milk Commissioner of Dairy Department and was the part of Dairy Department. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was sent on deputation in the department of Animal Husbandry. Thus, it is emphatically denied that the writ petitioner is 5 the employee of the State Government. In fact, the writ petitioner is an employee of the respondent No. 2/Federation and for this reason, the respondent No. 2/Federation vide memo dated 12/02/2019 informed him that he shall stand retired from service upon completion of 60 years of age of superannuation. It is further submitted that if the writ petitioner is the employee of the State Government, then he cannot be given appointment on the post of Livestock Development Demonstration Organizer in the M.P. Dugdha Mahasangh (Sahakari) Maryadit, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur which could only be possible after resignation from earlier services. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that while the writ petitioner was working with the Milk Federation, he was granted promotion on the post of Village Extension Organizer and therefore, the name of the petitioner was in the gradation list of Village Extension Organizer which is evident from perusal of the seniority /gradation list of Village Extension Organizer of Dairy Federation and to demonstrate the above, copy of the relevant page of the seniority /gradation list of the post of Village Extension Organizer as on 01.11.2000 and as on 01.07.2013 showing the name of original writ petitioner as Sr. No. 7 is filed herewith as Annexure A/3 colly. It is further respectfully submitted that in the Department of Animal Husbandry, the posts on which the petitioner was initially appointed and thereafter promoted i.e. Village Extension Organizer is not in the set up of Department. Alongwith the writ petitioner, one B.K. Sahu was also appointed in the Dairy 6 Federation who was also granted promotion similar to the writ petitioner on the post of Village Extension Organizer and whose name is also mentioned at Sr. No. 1 in the aforesaid gradation list issued by the Dairy Federation. He also submits that learned Single Judge has further failed to appreciate that in the year 1999, a policy decision was taken by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh to abolish the post of Milk Commissioner of Dairy Department and as a result of which the employee of M.P. Milk Federation including the writ petitioner which was under the Milk Commissioner, were declared surplus, therefore, a decision was taken to deploy the surplus employees of M.P. Milk Federation in the Department of Animal Husbandry on deputation and by virtue of the said decision, an order dated 12.04.1999 was issued whereby the writ petitioner was deployed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services). The deployment of the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer was made on account of the reason that he has the training in Veterinary Medical Field Assistant and this fact is evident from perusal of the order (Annexure A/2). It is further submitted that the writ petitioner has misinterpreted the order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/4) treating it to be an order of appointment whereas the very language of the said order dated 12.04.1999 makes it very clear that it indeed is an order of deputation fron M.P. Milk Federation to the appellants. Further perusal of the said order dated 12.04.1999 would make it clear that in the endorsement, it 7 has been clearly directed that the amount of General Provident do not deduct from the employees and as per the last pay slip provided by the M.P. Milk Federation, the amount of Employee Provident Fund (EPF) should be deducted from the payment and sent to the M.P. Milk Federation. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/4), the amount under the head of EPF was deducted from the salary of the wit petitioner and similarly the EPF was also deducted from the salary of one Shri B.K. Sahu and to demonstrate the above, copy of the last pay certificate issued by the parent department i.e. M.P. Milk Federation and letter dated 08.07.2021 showing deduction of EPF amount till his retirement of one Shri B.K. Sahu is collectively filed herewith as Annexure A/5. He contended that a bare perusal of the order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/4) would make it apparent that the services of the writ petitioner were taken in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) only on deputation for a period of one year. Thus, it is very much apparent that in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) merely the writ petitioner was on deputation and nothing. It is respectfully submitted that while posting on deputation in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services), the writ petitioner somehow got managed the official of the said department and succeeded in placing his name in the gradation list of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, who were the actual employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) whereas 8 the lien of the writ petitioner always remained with M.P. Milk Federation / Raipur Cooperative Milk Federation, because the services of the writ petitioner were never absorbed into the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) while the petitioner was taken on deputation basis. He further contended that in order to prove the fact that the services of the writ petitioner were taken on deputation in the Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary Services) for a period of one year which was extended for further period of one year vide order dated 12.06.2000 and upon expiry of the deputation period, the original writ petitioner was repatriated to his parent department, the appellants hereby file copy of the repatriation order dated 17.04.2003 as Annexure A/6 for kind perusal of this Court. Had it been a case where the writ petitioner was the employee of the State Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, then there was no requirement of issuing the order of repatriation dated 17.04.2003 because the period of deputation of the writ petitioner has already come to an end. He also contended that vide order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure A/4), the services of the writ petitioner was taken on deputation in the Department of Animal Husbandry for a period of one year which was extended for further period of one year and the same was further extended time to time. To demonstrate the above, copy of the order dated 09.06.2000 is filed herewith as Annexure A/7. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 9 9. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellants and submits that learned Single Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / father of respondent No.1 herein, which warrants no interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that it is very unfortunate that the retiral dues were not paid by respondent authorities on the ground that the previous petition is pending so they are not paying any retiral dues but now this Court held that the impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803/2019 is not sustainable and petitioner is employee of State Government. Admittedly, the age of retirement of the State Government employee at the relevant time was 62 years. Leaned Single Judge also observed that on the basis of aforesaid discussions, in the light of above mentioned decisions and the manner in which the deceased petitioner was retired from services and his retiral dues were held, both the petitions stand allowed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) in WPS No. 4803 of 2019 is hereby set aside. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 in WPS No. 4803/2019 and respondents No. 1 & 2 in WPS No. 3037/2022 are directed to 10 calculate all retiral dues of late Ravi Kumar Singh till his death or his date of retirement whichever is earlier and the same be released as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of that order to his legal representative i.e. Chandra Kumar Singh (petitioner herein). 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition, as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu