1 2025:CGHC:57400-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 858 of 2025 E. Nageshwar Rao S/o Late E. Kondaiha Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Lab Attendant Class Iv Employee At District Veterinary Research Laboratory District - Durg (C.G.) (At Present Aged 67 Years And Retired From Service As Veterinary Assistant ) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Department of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Department of Veterinary Services, Mandi Get Pandari, Raipur Division, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Deputy Director Department of Veterinary Services, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. 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 26 . 11 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petition in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3261 of 2021, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee in Veterinary Department in the year 1979 and the services of the petitioner were regularized and he was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant vide order dated 29.11.1985. Earlier the petitioner filed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 4908/2020 claiming therein higher pay scale and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2021 and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision. The respondent No.4 vide 3 order dated 05.03.2021 reverted the petitioner to a lower post on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for higher post of Lab Attendant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed another writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 3261 of 2021 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 31.07.2025. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant in the year 1985 and there was no objection neither from the department nor any other person and it is only after about 36 years, the respondent authorities have passed the orders for reverting back the petitioner only after the petitioner raised his claim. He further submits that the petitioner had initially filed the writ petition challenging erroneous fixation of pay and this Hon'ble Court had specifically directed the respondent authorities to take a decision with respect to the erroneous pay scale, but the respondent authorities instead of deciding the representation of the petitioner on erroneous pay scale reverted the petitioner to veterinary attendant which is highly arbitrary and illegal. He also submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that while passing the impugned order the respondent authorities did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor any enquiry was conducted and reverting the petitioner to a lower post 4 after more than 36 years amounts to punishment. He contended that before reverting the petitioner in the lower post no opportunity of being heard has been provided and the order under challenged in the writ petition is against the principle of natural justice but the learned Single Juge did not considered the case on that aspects and dismissed the petition by passing the impugned order. He lastly submits that the order under challenged in the petition was passed in the age of his superannuation and the said order effect all his retiral dues as well as pension though he has served about 35 years in the post, therefore, there is no necessity to revert him the lower post. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the required qualification for the post of Lab Attendant is higher secondary with Science subject. The qualification of the petitioner is 5th pass. The petitioner has not placed document to establish that he was eligible for 5 promotion/appointment to the post of Lab Attendant. The petitioner has also not placed any document to show that he has passed 12th examination during these years. Undisputedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant on 29.11.1985, but he was not having requisite qualification. The petitioner claim higher pay scale and the department scrutinized the records of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner is lacking requisite qualification, therefore, order was passed by respondent No. 4 to revert the petitioner to a lower post on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher post. 10. According to the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, reversion of a Government servant officiating in a higher service, grade or post to a lower service, grade or post, on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct would not amount to a penalty within the meaning of Rule 10. As reversion to the lower post in not a penalty, therefore, there was no need for the respondent authorities to conduct any inquiry. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra