1 2025:CGHC:4593-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 50 of 2025 Jimi Gupta S/o Shri R. K. Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Kanchan Gagan Phase-Ii, Behind Ravishankar University Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Office Of The Director General Sickle Cell Institute, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.27 18:47:41 +0530 2 Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer sfor respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 04.05.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 3115 of 2014 (Jimi Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for appointment on various posts including accounts officer. The writ petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of account officer. The writ petitioner after completion of due selection process, was selected for the post of account officer as per the list published on 14.06.2014. The writ petitioner was not served with any appointment order, therefore, he has made a representation on 27.06.2023 for issuance of appointment order, which was not considered by respondent No. 2, therefore, he has filed WPS No. 3115/2014, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.05.2023 and directed the respondent No. 2 to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and directed that the writ petitioner be given seniority as per merit in the selection list and his services shall be counted from the date other selected candidates have joined the service for all purposes, but no monetary benefits will 3 be extended to the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said fact, the writ petitioner / appellant herein has filed this present appeal with following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and the petitioner may be granted back wages/monetary benefit from the date of initial appointment/ selection to the date of appointment, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge in W. P. (S) no. 3115/2014 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. The learned Single Judge has held in last line of para 7 that the action of not issuing appointment order suffers from arbitrariness and without any foundation. The above order was challenged in the writ appeal before Hon'ble Division Bench and the same was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. Earlier removal order of contract employment was also challenged by filing W.P.S. No. 485/2015 on the ground that without opportunity of hearing such stigmatic order has passed, then this Hon'ble Court allowed the petition and quashed the termination order. The earlier department by letter dated 21.07.2023 has also issued no objection certificate in favour of the writ petitioner that it has no objection for present appointment of the writ petitioner. Thus the 4 petitioner /appellant was kept out of service after due selection without any reason and foundation as held by the Hon'ble Court and further the petitioner was deprived from service without his fault and hence the principal of no work no pay does not apply in such cases in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the petitioner may be granted back wages/monetary benefit from the date of initial appointment/ selection. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein directing that the writ petitioner be given seniority as per merit in the selection list and his services shall be counted from the date other selected candidates have joined the service for all purposes, but no monetary benefits will be extended to the writ petitioner, in which, no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that Clause 11(3) of the Rules of 2013 which was referred by the respondents / State does not speak about the case of a candidate who has been terminated by other 5 establishment. As per the prevailing service rules governing the field of termination, recruitment or misconduct, which provides imposing bar of getting subsequent employment with the employer, but the rules which have been referred to do not deal with the such situation. Even otherwise, it is for the employer who has passed the order of punishment disqualifying the employees, who have been terminated on account of certain misconduct. The other employer or Government department, which cannot apply such clause for not issuing appointment order on the count that earlier the writ petitioner was terminated in absence of any such specific clause. Even clause 11(3) of the Rules of 2013 also envisages that inquiry has to be conducted before declaring to an employee unfit for the job. Learned Single Judge lastly concluded that from the records, it is quite vivid that no inquiry has been conducted to record such a finding. The action of respondent No. 2 suffers from arbitrariness without any foundation. Hence, the writ petitioner filed by the writ petitioner was allowed vide order dated 04.05.2023, directing the respondent No. 2 to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and directed that the writ petitioner be given seniority as per merit in the selection list and his services shall be counted from the date other selected candidates have joined the service for all purposes, but no monetary benefits will be extended to the writ petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing 6 for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet