-1- 2025:CGHC:15045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3506 of 2018 Ashok Kumar Dewangan S/o Chhannulal Dewangan, Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Paricharak Sah Chowkidar At Veterinary Hospital Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon R/o Village Ari, P.S. Dongargaon, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Agriculture, Veterinary And Animal Husbandry Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Veterinary Services, Raipur District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.03.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notice dated 23.03.2018 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Annexure P/1) issued by the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Rajnangaon. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash the enquiry report submitted by the Committee constituted as per order dated 15.11.2017. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state to allow to continue the petitioner’s study for two year Veterinary Polytechnic Course/Diploma at Veterinary Polytechnic College, Rajnandgaon. 10.4. To kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner was appointed as Paricharak-cum-Chowkidar at Veterinary Hospital, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. B. The petitioner filed WPS No. 815/2017, seeking seniority from the date of his initial appointment; the same was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2017 and a direction was issued to respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner within three months. C. The Deputy Director, Veterinary, constituted a committee on 18.05.2017. The committee submitted its report on 03.06.2017, wherein it was observed that daily-rated employees appointed before 20.12.2000 were regularized as per the sanctioned set-up dated 13.10.2005. D. On the basis of the committee’s report, the Deputy Director, Veterinary, Rajnandgaon, regularized the services of the petitioner on 22.06.2017 granting monetary benefits from 01.04.2017. E. A similarly situated employee Jagdish Ram Sinha had filed WPS No. -3- 3683/2016 seeking seniority from his initial appointment and vide order dated 22.06.2017 a direction was issued to the respondents to consider his representation. F. In compliance, respondent No.3 constituted a committee, which submitted its report on 15.11.2017. G. Respondent authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.03.2018 and directed him to file his explanation within seven days.The impugned notice states that in the absence of a sanctioned and vacant post, notional seniority could not be granted to the petitioner. 3) Ms. Zainab Vanak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a ‘daily-rated employee’ prior to the year 2000, but his services as daily rated employee before regularization have not been considered for pension and other benefits. She further argues that the department has considered the names of other similarly situated employees, but the petitioner has been singled out. She contends that the show cause notice has been issued in contravention of the well-settled legal principles and prays for quashing of the notice dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Deputy Director. 4) On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State, opposes the submissions made by Ms. Vanak. She contends that only a show cause notice has been issued and the petitioner was granted sufficient time to submit a reply. She would further submit that instead of filing a response to the notice, the petitioner chose to file a writ petition and an interim order is operating in his favor. She also submits that the petitioner still has the opportunity to submit his response before the respondent -4- authorities. Thus, she prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5) Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) A perusal of the order dated 23.03.2018 reveals that the petitioner was not entitled to be granted the benefit of notional seniority in the absence of a vacant and sanctioned post. The concerned authority directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within 7 days; however, instead of complying with such a direction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7) Considering the fact that no adverse action has been taken against the petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity to submit a reply, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 8) However, the petitioner is granted additional 15 days to submit a fresh reply to the notice dated 23.03.2018 along with relevant documents and in turn, the respondent authority is directed to consider the reply in an objective manner strictly in accordance with the law. 9) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 10) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. No Cost(s). The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM