1 2025:CGHC:37567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3261 of 2021 * - E. Nageshwar Rao S/o Late E. Kondaiha Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Lab Attendant Class IV Employee At District Veterinary Research Laboratory, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Department Of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Department Of Veterinary Services, Mandi Get Pandari, Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Department Of Veterinary Services, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned orders dated 05.03.2021 & 18.03.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1 & ANNEXURE P-2) passed by the respondent authority. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.05 19:54:06 +0530 2 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant pay scale of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 to the petitioner from 29/11/1985 along with all arrears & benefits and interest. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners. 2. Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee in Veterinary Department in the year 1979. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were regularized and he was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant vide order dated 29.11.1985. He would further contend that the petitioner filed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4908/2020 claiming therein higher pay scale and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2021 and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 vide order dated 05.03.2021 reverted the petitioner to a lower post on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for higher post of Lab Attendant. He would submit that the petitioner was a regular employee and he was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant in the year 1985, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no inquiry was conducted. He would pray to quash the order Annexure P-1 dated 05.03.2021. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit the requisite qualification for the post of Lab Attendant was 12th with Science subject, whereas the petitioner was having qualification of 5th pass and therefore, decision was taken by the respondent authorities after due verification of record pursuant to order passed in WPS No. 3 4908/2020. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the required qualification for the post of Lab Attendant is higher secondary with Science subject. The qualification of the petitioner is 5th pass. The petitioner has not placed document to establish that he was eligible for promotion/appointment to the post of Lab Attendant. The petitioner has also not placed any document to show that he has passed 12th examination during these years. 6. Undisputedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant on 29.11.1985, but he was not having requisite qualification. The petitioner claim higher pay scale and the department scrutinized the records of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner is lacking requisite qualification, therefore, order was passed by respondent No. 4 to revert the petitioner to a lower post on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher post. 7. According to the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, reversion of a Government servant officiating in a higher service, grade or post to a lower service, grade or post, on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct would not amount to a penalty within the meaning of Rule 10. As reversion to the lower post in not a penalty, therefore, there was no need for the respondent authorities to conduct any inquiry. 4 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by respondent No. 4. 9. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti