1 2025:CGHC:7657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6898 of 2018  P.N. Singh S/o Late Shri Ramji Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Dangania, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Energy Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Through - Chairman, Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Member Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Surya Prakash Shukla Director (Engineering) Cum Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Commission, Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate along with Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order 01.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) and SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.18 10:47:06 +0530 2 decision and order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed with respondent No. 2/Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission; he got retired from services after completion of 60 years. Thereafter, he was appointed on a contract basis for a period of one year on the post of Secretary of respondent No. 2/Commission vide order dated 06.03.2012. The period of contract was extended from time to time for a period of one year and it continued till 06.09.2018. Before the expiry of the period of one year, a decision was taken by the Chairperson of the Commission, thereby, extending the services of the petitioner on a contract basis for a period of one year from 06.09.2018 to 30.09.2019 by order dated 22.06.2018; the order was passed prior to the expiry of the contract period, and subsequently, respondent No. 2/Commission cancelled the order dated 22.06.2018 vide order dated 05.09.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the Commission and the same was also rejected vide order dated 01.10.2018. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by filing this petition. 3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that orders impugned have been passed only on account of disagreement of the petitioner with the decision, which has been taken by the previous Chairman. He would further submit that the authorities concerned did not have jurisdiction to issue an order of cancellation which was passed by the earlier Chairman dated 22.06.2018. He would also submit that the Chairman alone had the power to extend the services for a period of one year and such power was exercised by the authority which could have not 3 been interfered with by the Commission. He would pray to quash both the orders. 4. Ms. Meena Shastri, counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe. She would submit that the order dated 22.06.2018 was not passed by the Commission and it was passed by the Chairperson only. She would further submit that Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2003”) defines ‘Commission’ and it includes ‘Chairperson’ along with members; therefore, the order dated 22.06.2018 cannot be construed as an order passed by the Commission. She would also submit that according to Regulation 24 of the C.G. State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 2005”), the maximum contractual period may be one year which may be extended up to the period of three years and in exceptional situation, it can be extended for a further period of 5 years. She would contend that the Chairman of the Commission had no authority of law to extend the period of contract for more than five years. She would further submit that the petitioner has already served for more than five years; therefore, he has no right to continue on the post of Secretary with respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Ms. Shashtri. 6. Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines ‘Commission’ which reads thus:- “82 (4). The State Commission shall consist of not more than three Members, including the Chairperson.” 7. According to provisions of this Section, the State Commission shall itself 4 consist of not more than three members including the Chairperson. In the present case, the order dated 22.06.2018 was issued by the Chairperson alone, and there was no consent of the other two members; therefore, it can safely be held that it was not a decision taken by the Commission. 8. Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005 deals with the maximum Contract period and the same is reproduced herein-below :- “24. Contract Service If the exigencies of the Commission’s service so demands and after recording reasons therefore, any vancat post in the Commission may be temporarily filled through contract for a period normally not exceeding one year at a time and for a total period of three years. In exceptional cases the Commission may extend this period to five years.” 9. According to the provisions of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005, the services of a contractual employee working under the Commission cannot be extended for more than five years. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has already completed five years of services in the post of Secretary, and thereafter, without obtaining consent of the other members, a decision was taken by the Chairperson to extend the services for a period of one more year, which was in contravention with the provisions of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2005 as well as Section 82(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by respondent No. 2. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant