1 2026:CGHC:27155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7160 of 2022  Tankeshwar Prasad Kaivart S/o Shri Chhote Lal Kaivart Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pahanda Chowki Urga Ps Kotwali Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 4 and 5 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2.7.2026 2 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to kindly quash the order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure- P/5) and directed to the respondent authority to passed the order in favour of the petitioner for given joining to the petitioner on the post of panchayat secretary of village pahanda, and also directed to the respondent authority to compliance the order passed by themselves on dated 07.07.2005 in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, Which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was appointed to the post of Secretary in Gram Panchayat Pahanda, Block Korba, District Korba in the year 1997 and his services were regularized in the year 1999. An FIR was registered against the petitioner for commission of offense punishable u/s 376 of IPC however petitioner was acquitted from the charges by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba vide judgment dated 24.2.2005. Petitioner remained in judicial custody for considerable period and after acquittal, he approached the respondents No. 4 and 5 seeking permission to join the services on 7.7.2005 and he was permitted to join the services. Thereafter, matter was referred to Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korba who refused to accept the joining application of the petitioner. Petitioner made numerous applications/ representations before the respondent authorities but no heed was paid. Subsequently, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korba vide order dated 28.11.2019 declined to permit 3 the petitioner to join the services on account of unauthorized absence of more than 14 years. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid order by filing revision before Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division which was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2021. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.11.2019 was rejected vide order dated 12.7.2021 on the ground that appeal would lie before the General Administration Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat whereas according to Rule 3(d) of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1995’] the appeal would lie before Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat. He prays to set aside the order dated 12.7.2021. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties would oppose. They submit that petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly from service for more than 14 years therefore a resolution was passed by the General Administration Committee of Zila Panchayat on 9.7.2019 and pursuant to it, Chief Executive Office, Zila Panchayat Korba declined the petitioner to join service vide order dated 28.11.2019. They further submit that petitioner has not explained the delay part therefore Addl. Commissioner has rightly rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner as the appeal would lie before the General 4 Administration Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat. They also submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) At this stage, it would be profitable to quote Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1995 herein-below :- 3. Appeal and appellate authorities. – *** (a)*** (b)*** (c)*** (d) in the case of an order passed by the Panchayat specified in Column (1) of the Table below- to the authority specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereto. TABLE (1) (2) a) Gram Panchayat Sub-Divisional Officer b) Janpad Panchayat Collector c) Zila Panchayat Commissioner 7) In the present case, petitioner remained absent from service for period of 14 years and respondent No. 4 vide order dated 28.11.2019 rejected the representation of petitioner and refused him to join the services. Petitioner preferred revision before Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and same was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2021 on the ground that appeal would lie before the General Administration Committee of the concerned Zila Panchayat. 5 8) In my opinion, findings recorded by Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur in order dated 12.7.2021 appears to be erroneous as according to Rule 3(d) of Rules of 1995, the appeal against an order passed by Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat would lie before Divisional Commissioner. 9) It is pertinent to mention that petitioner should have preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner but nomenclature of an application would not be decisive and the authority concerned should have treated the revision as appeal. Having considered the above aspect of the matter, the order dated 12.7.2021 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division is hereby quashed. 10) Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner treating it as an appeal strictly in accordance with law, preferably within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11) It is expected that the authority shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the interested parties before passing any order(s). 12) In result, this writ petition stands disposed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.02 17:58:17 +0530