1 2025:CGHC:59047-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 892 of 2025 Kullu Prasad Upadhyay S/o Dhanu Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 51 Years Working As Head Constable And Posted At Police Control Room Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant :Shri Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate. For Respondents/State :Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:23:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.12.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application. Delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2590/2023 whereby and whereunder the writ petition of the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been disposed of and the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 52/2025 by which the review petition preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed. For the sake convenience the parties are referred as per their status in the writ Court. 4. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as constable in the year 1990 and worked till 17.03.1998 thereafter due to personal reason, he resigned 3 from service which was accepted by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh. Later on, he applied for reappointment on the post of constable which was considered by the respondents and as per para 260 of the Police Regulation, he was reappointed on the post of constable on 23.07.2001 in the police department wherein it has been mentioned that his previous service rendered by him will be considered for reappointment. 5. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 observing thus: “ xxx xxx xxx 8. From bare perusal of the Regulation 260, it is quite vivid that the Inspector General can declare that the previous service of the applicant will be counted for his pension and order of reinstatement also reveals that the past services of the petitioner will be counted for the purpose of pension only. As such, the contention raised by the petitioner that his past services should e counted for all other service benefits including annual increment, promotion, seniority, is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 4 9. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is still in service as head constable and when the petitioner retires the past services rendered by him should be counted for the purpose of grant of pension. This submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the State since the same is permissible under the Police Regulation. As such, the apprehension of the petitioner at this juncture, is premature. However, when the petitioner retires from service, it is incumbent upon the authorities to add past service of the petitioner as per pension regulation and their order dated 23.07.2001. 10. Since, the grievance of the petitioner so far as it relates to the counting his past services for the purpose of pension has already been addressed, nothing is required to be adjudicated upon by this Court at this juncture. 11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed off.” 5 6. Against the said order, the writ petitioner earlier preferred W.A. No. 07/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 05.02.2025 observing thus at para 3 & 4: “ xxx xxx xxx 3. ------- though the appellant has made a prayer regarding his pay scale, holidays and previous service pension with other all consequential benefit within stipulated time, but learned Single Judge has passed the order only with respect to pension of past services and as such, he prays that the present writ appeal be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach learned Single Judge, to which leanred Deputy Government Advocate respondents/State has no objection. appearing for the 4. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No cost(s). “ 7. Pursuant to the said order, the writ petitioner preferred review petition no. 52/2025, which was dismissed by order dated 12.08.2025 observing thus at para 4 & 5: “ xxx xxx xxx 6 4. From perusal of the order which was sought to be reviewed it is quite vivid that the petitioner has intent to make a new ground which is beyond the preview of review. Even other wise, from perusal of annexure P/1 of original petition dated 23.07.2001, it is quite vivid, that no specific order with regard to counting of past service for other benefits have been mentioned in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has also not challenged the order dated 23.07.2001. On the contrary, he has prayed for issuance of direction to respondent authorities to comply with letter dated 06.09.2021 which is not relevant for the present issue raised in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner would submit that he may be granted liberty favour of the petitioner to pursue his representation before the authority. 5. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. With this observations, the review petition is disposed of.“ 7 8. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that despite provided under Regulation 260 he has not been given benefits of past services for the purposes of increment. He has filed representation on 13.09.2021 before the respondents but the same has not been considered. Hence, this petition with a prayer that the respondents may kindly directed to comply the order dated 06.09.2021 by adding past services of the petitioner for pay scale, holidays and all other service benefits. 9. While supporting the impugned order, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand would submit that the petitioner himself resigned his service. The respondents duly considered his application and as per para 260 of the Police Regulation, his prayer was accepted for rejoining of service and directed for inclusion of previous service only for pension which is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is an admitted fact that while the petitioner working on the post of Constable he tendered the resignation from service owing to his personal reasons which were duly accepted by the 8 DGP of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, however, the petitioner moved an application for his reappointment, which were duly considered by the authorities and he was reappointed on the post of Constable on 23.07.2001. After his re-appointment the petitioner started claiming the benefits of increments which has been declined by the authorities, however, they counted the past service of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits, pursuant to regularization 260 of the Police Regulation. It would be apt to quote regulation 260 of the Police Regulation for deciding the present issue, the same reads as under;- "Para 260 of the Police Regulation: Re- enlistment. -I.G's Sanction for : -A police ofÏcer who has resigned or been discharged maybe re-enlisted with the sanction of the Inspector General who may, at his discretion, declare that the previous service of the applicant will be counted for his pension. A declaration of this nature will only be made if the circumstances of the resignation or the previous history of the applicant show that he is deserving of the concession." 12.Based upon the aforesaid regulations and considering the submissions of the parties that the past services rendered by the petitioner will be counted for pensionary benefits, the said 9 writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the writ appeal No. 07/2025 preferred by the petitioner and subsequently preferred review petition no. 52/2025 which has been duly considered and dismissed by this Court. 13.Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the para 260 of the Police Regulation which provides that the previous service of the petitioner will be counted for pension only. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order in writ petition as also in review petition. The same are just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 14. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 15.In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib