1 2025:CGHC:2105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1730 of 2016 Achheram Navarang S/o Late Shri T. R. Navarang, Aged About 45 Years Deputy Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Department Of Personal And Training, Ministry Of Personel, Public Grievances And Pensions, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 4 - The Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddhant Das on behalf of Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 13.01.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); 2 “10.1 To call for the entire records from the respondent Authorities pertaining to the petitioner's case for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ to respondents restraining the forcible and illegal allocation of the petitioner to M.P. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash order dated 06/05/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 2 allocating his services to the state of Madhya Pradesh and relieving him. 10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case which is reflected from the pleadings is that the petitioner was appointed as District Organizer in the department of SC ST Development on 19.01.1999. In the year 2000 by virtue of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 successor State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh were came into existence. The petitioner was allocated to State of M.P. by an allocation order of Union of India issued in the year 2002 (Annexure P/4). The same was subject to challenge before this Court in bunch of petitions and one of them being filed by the petitioner and registered as WP No. 2269/2002. This Court while deciding the bunch of petitions including the WP No.2269/2002 directed the petitioner to make representation to the respondent No.1 Union of India vide its order dated 28.04.2003. The representation so made ought to have been decided by respondent No.1 on or before 31.07.2003. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2 with the copy to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 and other concerned (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 06.05.2016 was passed by which the petitioner was relieved from State of Chhattisgarh to State of Madhya Pradesh in compliance of the order passed in WP No.2269/2002 dated 28.04.2003. 3 4. Return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 1 in sum and substance stated that the petitioner may make a fresh representation which shall be decided by it in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 pleaded that in order to assess the application/representation made by the respective employees, a meeting was convened on 01.02.2016 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and it was decided that the cases in which the final allocation is made to State of M.P. and no interim order is passed, they shall be relieved within a period of one week. A decision further has been taken that those employees who have been finally allocated to state of M.P. because of any reasons and they were not relieved, they would not be entitled for promotion and if any promotion is granted, proceeding to cancel the same shall be carried out. Therefore by making a decision, the impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an option to serve in the State of C.G. and in compliance of the order dated 28.04.2003 passed in WA No. 2269/2022 he has made the representation to the respondent No.2 and the copy was forwarded to respondent No. 1 & 3 and other concerned. The decision on the representation of the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the as the petitioner was not relieved, by the interim order of this Court dated 08.04.2003 passed in WA No.2269/2002, the petitioner was still continue to serve in the State of Chhattisgarh. He submits that during this period, the petitioner was given promotion also. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of this Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and as such the impugned order is 4 passed only as a consequence and in execution of the allocation of the petitioner passed by the Union of India, the same cannot be set aside or quashed by this Court. He submit that a decision has been taken by the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to relieve the employees who have been allocated to the State of M.P. and therefore, there is no illegality, irregularity in passing the impugned order. 7. Mr. Rishabhdev Singh appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India submits that as per the return filed by the Union of India, the petitioner may make a fresh representation to the Central Government which shall be decided by it within a reasonable period of time. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the case in hand, it appears that there is no factual dispute. Admittedly vide Annexure P/4, the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of M.P. by an order of the respondent No.1. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 2269/2002 challenging his allocation order. This Court while deciding the writ petition of the petitioner along with the bunch matter passed the following order: “21. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statements made by the counsel on behalf of the parties, in the opinion of this Court, ends of Justice will be served if an opportunity is given to the petitioners, those who desire, to make a detailed representation raising their grievances along with documents on or before 10th May 2003 to the Central Government addressed to the Government of India. Department of Personal and Training. Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi (State Reorganization Cell). Same copy of the representation duly supported by all documents be also served on the concerned Departments of both the States after 5 obtaining the acknowledgment and both the States to forward the same to the Central Government with their comments and the requisite information and complete details within 30 days, in order to enable the Central Government to decide the representation. It is open to the Central Govt. to seek such further information from the State Governments and on such requisition being made from the Central Government, the State Governments will supply the same expeditiously. On such a representation being made. the Central Government shall consider and decide the same as early as possible preferably on or before 31st July, 2003 by passing appropriate orders.” 10. This Court also granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner that till decision given by the Central Government, the petitioners who have not been relieved shall allow to continue. It appears that a representation Annexure P/7 was given by the petitioner addressed to respondent No.2 State of C.G. which the petitioner ought to have addressed to respondent No.1 Union of India. However, the copy of the same appears to have been sent to the respondent No.1 and also other concerned. From the record it does not appear that any decision on the representation of the petitioner was taken by the respondent No.1 Union of India. On specific query was made to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and he is not in a position to demonstrate that decision on the representation of the petitioner was taken by respondent No.1 or the same was communicated to him. It could not be disputed that the representation dated 10.05.2003 Annexure P/7 was not received by Union of India. At this juncture, the return filed by the respondent No.1 Union of India is required to be quoted herein below: “9.That, the request of the petitioner for revision of his final allocation can be considered by this Respondent in terms of the guidelines for allocation of SC/ST category employees as the petitioner belongs to SC category and he is a 6 domicile/optee of Chhattisgarh. The true copy of said orders dated 28/29.07.2008 and 24.06.2010 are placed as Annexure-II. 10. That, in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in its order dated 17.04.2007 in W.P. No. 445/2001 in the matter of B.R. Godbole and Ors., an., Advisory Committee was constituted vide order 18.07.2007 under Section 71 of the Madhya Pradesh State Re-organisation Act, 2000 to consider the representations of the petitioners and other employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh for allocation. 11. That, the said Committee has been wound up vide order dated 01.04.2019. Consequent upon winding up of the aforesaid Advisory Committee, it has been decided that the representations of aggrieved employees will be considered by the Central Government/State Governments, on a case to case basis, in compliance of Court's directions, if, the Hon'ble Courts pass any specific directions to this effect. The true copy of said order dated 01.04.2019 is placed as Annexure-III. XXX 13. In view of the position brought out above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly pass directions to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Central Government for consideration in accordance with the guidelines of allocation and in view of para 9 and 11. 11. Since the respondent No.1 Union of India in categorical term pleaded that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation to the respondent No.1/ Union of India it could be considered on merits in individual capacity. This has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Union of India. 7 12. In light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation with all relevant documents to the respondent No.1/ Union of India within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent No. 1/ Union of India shall take decision on it in accordance with law after hearing the stakeholders, if any, within a further period of 90 days from the receipt of such representation. 13. This Court vide its order dated 17.05.2016 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order. Hence, till decision on the representation to be made by the petitioner is taken by the respondent No.1 / Union of India, the interim order shall operate. If the petitioner fails to make the representation within the stipulated time, the interim order shall cease to operate. 14. With above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari