1 2025:CGHC:33174-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 481 of 2025 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ganesh Ram Devdas S/o Shri Shyam Ratan Devdas Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Driver, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. A. Venumadhava S/o Shri A. K. N. Rao, Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Penuram Mandavi S/o Shri Chatursingh Mandavi Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Yashwant Kumar S/o Shri Bhushan Das Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Mahammed Saleem S/o Shri M. D. Moinuddin Ashrafi Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Ravindra Verma S/o Shri Shivam Verma Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Jitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Vishram Singh Yadav Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhatisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.16 17:44:43 +0530 2 8. Dhanat Kumar Shrey S/o Late Shri Geeta Ram Shery Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9. Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Shri Raja Ram Patel Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10. Kamal Krishna Tandan S/o Shri T. R. Tandan Aged About 31 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11. Mahesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Chandrakar Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12. Rajkishor Pal S/o Shri Sevaram Pal Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13. Parampreet Singh Kondal S/o Late Shri Trilochan Singh Aged About 31 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14. Deepak Kumar Kaushik S/o Shri Ankalaha Ram Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15. Harish Kumar Pal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Pal Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 16. Satish Kumar Sidar S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 17. Shivendra S/o Shri Narottam Lal Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 18. Rasbihari Jatwar S/o Shri Moharsay Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 19. Bhuvann Lal Purena S/o Shri Tarachand Purena Aged About 29 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 20. Bhupendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Dhirsai Singh Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Fireman, Grade-Ii, Working Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 21. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 22. The Director General, Home Guards, C.G. Emergency Services And State Disaster Response Force (Sdrf), District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 20 : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 20 and Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion 4 that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2934 of 2018 (Ganesh Ram Devdas & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 20/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents No.1 to 20 is the writ petitioners in the original writ petition and respondents No. 21 & 22 are State authorities and employer of the writ petitioners and under the definition of State provided under Article 12 of Constitution of India. He further submits that in the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners challenged the order relating to the merger of employees into the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), contending that they were not formally merged, but merely deputed to the SDRF without obtaining their prior consent. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Fireman Grade-II under the establishment of the appellant/Municipal Corporation and were discharging their duties accordingly. He also contended that with an objective to enhance fire safety measures and ensure prompt emergency response, the State Government, vide circular dated 24.03.2017, decided to establish a 5 dedicated department titled the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) for Fire and Emergency Services. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a plain reading of Annexure P/3 (in the writ petition) clearly reveals that all Fire Services functioning under various Municipal Corporations and Municipalities across the State were to be merged into the newly constituted SDRF. Consequently, all posts, employees, and related administrative control pertaining to Fire Services were to be transferred to the SDRF from their respective Urban Local Bodies, including the appellant-Municipal Corporation. He would submit that the fact remains that as per the Annexure P/3 (in the writ petition) all the fire services has been handed over to the SDRF and as such, there is no place/post/ need wherein the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners can be allocated. Therefore, the judgment needs to be reviewed and revisited. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners were transferred to the SDRF as part of a State-wide policy decision involving structural reorganization of Fire and Emergency Services, which included the merger of all Fire Service personnel from Municipal Corporations and Municipalities into the SDRF. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellant-Municipal Corporation to relieve and accommodate the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners, overlooks this critical policy context as well as the factual position that the appellant presently has no sanctioned or vacant posts to absorb the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners. The said direction is thus, not only contrary to the 6 administrative for scheme, but also impracticable implementation. Hence, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 20/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that taking into consideration the fact that the State in its affidavit filed on 27.03.2025 (in the writ petition) has declined to absorb the services of the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners with respondent No. 22 department herein, respondent No. 22 is directed to relieve the respondents No.1 to 20/writ petitioners immediately from the present place of posting to their parental department. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 22 herein within a period of 20 days from 11.04.2025. Appellant herein is directed to extend all benefits for which the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners are entitled which could not be extended on account of deputation. 11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 20/writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single 7 Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan