Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Suryakant Sinha, S/o. Mr. Shyam Lal Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department – Respondent
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. Since all these writ petitions raise substantially similar questions of fact and law, they have been ordered to be clubbed together.
Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure consistency in the adjudication of the issues involved.
3. All the petitioners, in the present batch of writ petitions, seek a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for absorption in the School Education Department on the strength of the order dated 23.07.2020. Their contention is that upon completion of two years of service, they are entitled to be absorbed with all consequential benefits, in the same manner as extended to the Shiksha Karmis of Panchayat and the Local Bodies Teachers who were absorbed in the School Education Department with effect from 01.11.2020.
4. For
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
The court emphasized that the condition imposed by the Finance Department for absorption of the petitioners in Government services was arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and that the respondents ha....
The court reaffirmed the right to equitable treatment in employment, necessitating the re-evaluation of absorption-related pay and benefits for employees absorbed under the U.P. Absorption Rules.
The court held that the government may withdraw re-employment provisions for retired teachers according to policy changes, and that no vested rights were violated as re-employment was contingent upon....
The university has exclusive authority over faculty absorption and regularization based on commission recommendations, and previous government notifications remain valid.
Absorption conditions in service law restrict past service benefits, emphasizing that claims must align with statutory stipulations, thus petitions challenging their constitutionality are unfounded.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
