1 CGHC010192092022 2026:CGHC:32699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4047 of 2022  Santosh Kumar Dhar S/o Late Rajnikant Dhar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Block No. B-5, Central Hospital Colony, Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2. General Manager (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3. General Manager, Office Of General Manager, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, South Jhagrakhand, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Area Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, South Jhagrakhand, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Medical Services, Central Hospital, Manendragarh, Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, South Jhagrakhand, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the matter. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.31 14:07:58 +0530 2 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28/05/2022 passed by Respondent No.4 (ANNEXURE P-1). 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compute the retiral dues of the petitioner as per the post held by him prior to the passing of the impugned order. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Line Mazdoor Category – II on 06.09.1981. His services were regularized on said post as Line Mazdoor Category – II on 01.08.1984. His services were transferred for new place of posting vide order dated 26.11.1990 and he was directed to work in clerical job. The services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of T.T. Munshi Clerk Grade-II vide order dated 08.05.1992 and said order was confirmed by the Deputy Personnel Manager vide order dated 04.06.1993. The petitioner was again transferred at Central Hospital, Manendragarh against the post of Clerk Grade-II. The petitioner was asked to submit matriculation and higher education certificate to maintain record vide letter dated 24-25.09.2020, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 28.09.2020. The petitioner was compelled to submit those documents by the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 17.01.2021 and the petitioner duly informed that those documents are missing. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Abhinav P. Dwivedi, and subsequently, the order of recovery and reversion to the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II was passed by the respondent No. 4 on 28.05.2022. 3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava would submit that at the verge of retirement, the order of recovery and reversion to the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II was 3 issued by the respondent No. 4 on 28.05.2022. He would submit that the petitioner is not aware of the fact as to why the order of recovery and reversion to the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II has been issued against him. He would submit that the respondent authorities have inflicted two major penalty by same order without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukh Bilash Thakur vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in AIR 2019 SCC 501. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate appearing for respondents would contend that though the petitioner was appointed on the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II on 06.09.1981, but his services were never regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-II. He would submit that the order dated 04.06.1993 was issued by the respondent No. 4 due to mistake. It is contended that the order dated 08.05.1992 is not in existence. He would further contend that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit matriculation and higher education certificates, but he failed, therefore, decision was taken by the respondent authorities to revert the petitioner and recover the excess payment made. He would submit that as the petitioner secured job by playing fraud, therefore, there was no requirement for the authorities concerned to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Karamjit Singh reported in AIR 2019 SCC 1913. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 4 placed on record. 6. Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II and regularization of his services on the said post are not in dispute. Subsequently, services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of T.T. Munshi Clerk Grade-II vide order dated 08.05.1992. According to the SECL authorities, said order is not in existence. Subsequent order dated 04.06.1993, issued by respondent No. 4 would show that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II, his services were regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 01.05.1992. It is also stated in the said order that he was posted to the post of Clerk Grade-II with effect from 01.05.1992. A direction was issued to treat the petitioner as Clerk Grade-II instead of TT Munshi Grade-II. 7. The order was issued way back on 04.06.1993 and no action was taken by the SECL authorities till 28.05.2022. It is stated in the return that a complaint was made against the petitioner, and thereafter, various notices wee issued. It is also stated that the petitioner was directed to submit his mark-sheets of matriculation and higher education before the employer, but he failed, therefore, decision was taken by respondent No. 4 on 28.05.2022 to revert the petitioner to the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II and to recover the excess payment made. The recovery amount has not been reflected in the order impugned. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukh Bilash Thakur (supra) held that order of reversion issued nearly twenty five years later and it would be unjust, inequitable and arbitrary suffering from the vice of unreasonableness, and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the 5 order of reversion and further held that employee shall be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law as if the order of reversion had never been passed. Relevant para 5 is reproduced herein-below :- 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider the order of reversion issued nearly twentyfive years later to be highly unjust, inequitable and arbitrary suffering from the vice of unreasonableness. Consequently, it is held to be unsustainable. We also notice that the appellant has already retired from service. The impugned order of reversion is therefore set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law as if the order of reversion had never been passed. Pensionary benefits and other retiral dues shall be paid to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The dues shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent till the date of actual payment. 9. In the matter of Karamjit Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an employee secured regularization of services by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, such an order of regularization would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further held that since the order of appointment on regular basis was illegal, employee could not be treated as employee of the department. It is also held that illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of absorption as a regular employee and in such a situation, there would be no requirement to held disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para 6.1, 6.2, 7 & 8 are reproduced herein- below :- “6.1 The High Court however failed to 6 appreciate that the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs B. Karunakar Etc. (AIR 1994 SC 1074) is applicable to “employees” of Government Departments. Since the very appointment of the Respondent on regular basis was illegal, he could not be treated as an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority. In Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank & Ors.,(AIR 2010 SC 787) this Court held that service rendered in pursuance of an illegal appointment or promotion cannot be equated to service rendered in pursuance of a valid and lawful appointment or promotion. 6.2. The illegality of such an appointment goes to the root of the Respondent’s absorption as a regular employee. The Respondent could not be considered to be an “employee”, and would not be entitled to any benefits under the Regulations applicable to employees of the Appellant – Authority. Therefore, the High Court erroneously placed reliance on the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra), which would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the Respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the State Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority. 8. It is abundantly clear from the facts of the case, and the material on record that the regularization of the services of the Respondent was illegal and invalid. The Respondent was provided a full opportunity to adduce evidence 7 to establish that he had 3 years’ continuous service prior to 22.01.2001. However, he failed to furnish any proof whatsoever to substantiate his claim. 10. In the present case, it has not been established by the respondent authorities that the petitioner secured order of regularization by playing fraud or on account of misrepresentation, therefore, on the basis of mere allegations, the order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 28.05.2022 cannot be held valid. The petitioner was appointed way back on 06.09.1981 and he worked with the respondents for long 30 years, but in between, no complaint was made, no inquiry was conducted and the qualification of the petitioner was never questioned by the respondent authorities. At the verge of retirement, decision was taken by the respondent No. 4 to revert the petitioner to the post of Line Mazdoor Category-II and to recover the amount of excess payment. It appears that services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 08.05.1992 and said order was confirmed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 04.06.1993. The observation made by the respondent No. 4 in its order dated 04.06.1993 do not leave any doubt that services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Clerk Grade-II by the department. As a complaint was made against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct an inquiry before imposing major penalty of reversion and recovery of excess payment. 11. Having considered the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 28.05.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly quashed. 12. Accordingly, instant petition is hereby allowed. 8 13. The petitioner shall be entitled for arrears of salary attached to the post of Clerk Grade-II, including admissible pension etc. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant