1 2025:CGHC:58730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2482 of 2023 1 - Uday Pratap Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o - Ward No. 1, Indra Nagar, Nagod, Tahsil Nagod, District Satna (Madhya Pradesh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Transport Department, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Treasuries, Accounts And Pension Department, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director Cidc Shastri Chowk Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent Under Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Management Department and further to absorb the services of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant pension to the petitioner from the appointment year 1984. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority for pay fixation/verification of the service book of the petitioner accordingly grant pension and retiral dues with all other consequential benefits to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order(s)/relief(s) which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award to the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Satna in 1984, and was later transferred to the Bilaspur Depot (now in Chhattisgarh). After the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, an order dated 11.12.2007 placed the petitioner on deputation to the District Office, Narayanpur, on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Subsequently, by order dated 04.02.2011, the Collector, Narayanpur absorbed the services of deputed employees, including the petitioner, in the post of Assistant Grade-III; however, this absorption order was withdrawn by a later order dated 02.09.2011, terming it erroneous. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal order in WPS No.5336/2011, which was allowed on 13.02.2020, setting aside the withdrawal and directing the State to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner a hearing. During the pendency of the matter, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2017, and the Deputy Collector, Narayanpur forwarded his service book for pay fixation under the 3 Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2017, under which he became entitled to revised pay benefits. Despite repeated communications sent in 2018 and 2021 for verification of his service book and pay fixation, the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, by order dated 16.06.2021, declined to absorb the petitioner on the ground that absorption could only be made in a Corporation, Board, or Tribunal and not in the Revenue Department, thereby ignoring the High Court’s earlier directions. As a result, although certain retiral benefits such as contributory pension, leave encashment, and insurance amounts were released, the petitioner’s gratuity and arrears under the 2017 Pay Revision Rules remain unpaid due to non-completion of the service- verification process. Multiple representations made by the petitioner, including those dated 31.03.2021 and 04.09.2021, and subsequent communications from the Collector and the CIDC acknowledging his absorption and retirement from the District Office, Narayanpur, have not resulted in final resolution of his claim. The petitioner asserts that the authorities have arbitrarily failed to decide his entitlement to gratuity, arrears, and other retiral benefits, causing him irreparable hardship after his superannuation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in 1984, and upon reorganization of the State, his services were transferred to Bilaspur Depot in Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, by order dated 11.12.2007, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the District Office, Narayanpur, and posted as Assistant Grade-III, and thereafter, by order dated 04.02.2011, the Collector, 4 Narayanpur formally absorbed the petitioner along with other deputed employees. However, the said absorption order was arbitrarily withdrawn on 02.09.2011, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court in WPS No.5336/2011, wherein the withdrawal order was quashed on 13.02.2020 and the matter was remitted to the State Government with a direction to reconsider the case after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that during this period, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2017, and despite communications from the Deputy Collector for verification of his service book and pay fixation under the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2017, the authorities failed to take timely steps. Instead, by order dated 16.06.2021, the Revenue & Disaster Management Department illegally declined to absorb the petitioner without appreciating the binding directions of this Court, rendering the impugned decision arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to law. It is urged that although certain retiral benefits such as contributory pension, leave encashment and insurance amounts have been released, the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of gratuity and arrears under the 2017 Pay Revision Rules solely due to the inaction of authorities in completing service-verification procedures. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that repeated representations made by the petitioner, coupled with multiple communications from the Collector and CIDC acknowledging his absorption and retirement from the District Office, Narayanpur, have not resulted in a final decision, thereby causing grave injustice to a superannuated employee who has been compelled to approach every possible authority for relief. It is therefore argued that the persistent failure of the respondents to 5 implement this Court’s earlier directions and to release the petitioner’s rightful retiral dues is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, causing irreparable hardship to the petitioner, and thus warrants appropriate intervention by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves outright dismissal, as the petitioner was originally an employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC), which was abolished after the reorganisation of the State in 2002, and all employees, including the petitioner, were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in terms of the Central Government’s notification dated 27.07.2002. It is submitted that in order to rehabilitate such employees, the State framed specific policies dated 13.12.2002, 06.02.2003 and 23.12.2004, under which the petitioner’s services were absorbed in the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), and subsequently, by order dated 11.12.2007, he was merely sent on deputation to the District Office, Narayanpur, against the post of Assistant Grade- III. As per the aforesaid rehabilitation policies, employees of CIDC could only be absorbed in a Corporation, Board, Federation or Commission, and not in any department of the State Government; further, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for absorption on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The inadvertent absorption order dated 04.02.2011 issued by the Collector, Narayanpur was therefore illegal and, upon discovery of the error, was rightly cancelled on 02.09.2011. Although the said cancellation 6 order was later set aside by this Court on 13.02.2020 in WPS No.5336/2011 with a direction for fresh consideration, the competent Under Secretary, in compliance with the Court’s directions, passed a detailed order dated 16.06.2021 reaffirming that absorption in the Revenue Department was impermissible because no Corporation, Board or Commission exists under that department; however, directions were issued to ensure that the petitioner’s admissible retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance deductions are processed. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 has already released GIS amount of Rs.11,700/- and leave encashment of Rs.1,75,469/- and has also decided the petitioner’s subsequent representation dated 12.12.2023 by a well-reasoned speaking order dated 13.12.2023. The respondents assert that they have fully discharged their obligations limited to the period during which the petitioner was sheltered in CIDC, and they cannot be saddled with liabilities or service-related claims arising from periods when the petitioner was serving in another department. They emphasise that CIDC is not the petitioner's parent department after his deputation and subsequent work under other authorities, and any further decision regarding absorption or remaining monetary benefits falls solely within the domain of the competent State authorities. Therefore, the petition, being untenable and misdirected, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner stood superannuated on 31.12.2017 and has approached this Court thereafter seeking, inter alia, a direction for his absorption and for grant of consequential service benefits. Once the petitioner has already retired from service, no direction can now be issued with respect to his absorption in any department or establishment, for the reason that absorption necessarily presupposes a subsisting service tenure, which in the present case has already come to an end. 7. It is well settled that after retirement, the question of granting absorption or extending any other service-related benefits arising out of service status does not arise. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in regard to absorption, pay fixation, or any other consequential service benefits post-retirement cannot be awarded at this stage. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to pursue any unpaid retiral dues that may be admissible under law before the competent authority, but no such direction can be issued in the present proceedings touching upon matters of service status which have already lapsed by virtue of his retirement. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit so far as the reliefs claimed are concerned, stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE