1 CGHC010223172021 2026:CGHC:42805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3580 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Head Office , Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block 7-A, 2nd Floor Office Complex Sector 24, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog Through Its President Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog, Sakcharta Chowk Police Headquarters Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - President Cum Chairperson Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog, Saksharta Chowk , Police Headquartes Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog, Saksharta Chowk , Police Headquartes Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pramod Kumar Jangde S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Jangde Aged About 36 Years R/o New Risda Bhadrapra, Bargarh Chowk, Balco Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. To call for the entire records of the present case. 10.2. To issue the writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ and quash the impugned recommendation dt. 12.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued in Case No. 06/2021 by Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog Raipur, in the interest of justice. 10.3. To set aside the entire proceeding of Case No. 06/2021 before Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Aayog Raipur. 10.4. To hold that the Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Aayog has no jurisdiction to adjudicate or grant stay. 10.5. To pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned recommendation dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Aayog, Raipur is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Aayog is vested only with recommendatory powers and has no adjudicatory jurisdiction to 3 determine the rights of the parties or to grant any substantive relief. Learned counsel further submits that, although the impugned order has been styled as a recommendation, in its concluding portion, the Aayog has recommended grant of certain benefits to the respondent, which amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction vested in it. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned recommendation is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the Aayog has rightly passed the impugned recommendation, which is merely recommendatory in nature and does not amount to an adjudicatory order. He further submits that, so far as the relief relating to reinstatement is concerned, the same had already been granted pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.478 of 2016 and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Consequently, the respondent has already been reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by the writ appellate Court. He further submits that any recommendation made by the Aayog by itself does not confer any enforceable right upon the respondent and the concerned authorities are required to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that the Aayog, while considering the grievance raised before it, has entered into an adjudication of the disputed issues, which was beyond the scope of its recommendatory jurisdiction. The Aayog is vested with recommendatory powers and cannot assume the role of an adjudicatory authority or pass directions determining the 4 rights of the parties. The said legal position has recently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1398, wherein it has been held that the Commission’s role is recommendatory and advisory and that it does not possess adjudicatory power to issue binding directions in service matters. 5. In the present case, the Aayog, while making its recommendation, has gone beyond its limited recommendatory jurisdiction and has recommended grant of benefits to the concerned respondent. To that extent, the impugned recommendation dated 12.08.2021 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. 6. However, it is made clear that quashing of the impugned recommendation shall not confer any right upon respondent No.4 to claim any benefit on the basis of the said recommendation. It is further made clear that the present order shall not come in the way of any departmental proceedings or any action otherwise permissible in law against respondent No.4. Any such action, if required, shall be taken by the competent authority independently and strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi