V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.04.02 11:09:47 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3923 of 2015 Naseem Khan S/o Late Shri Ahmed Khan, Aged About 69 Years Retired Assistant Engineer, R/o. 71, Anand Vihar Colony, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

2 - Superintendent Engineer, Durg Circle, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

3 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, O And M Division Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Abhyuday Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

20.03.2026

1. Heard.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order 14–8-2013 (Annexure P-1) and relief prayed in the representation dated 29/30-04-2013 may kindly be granted.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed the respondents to count petitioner’s service from the date of his initial appointment dated 12-11-1969 for regularization, promotion, seniority and give the consequential benefit in proper place.

10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the cash.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Work Charge Supervisor on 01.11.1969 with Office of the Chief Engineer, MPEB, and joined to his duty on 15.11.1969 and continued in his service. However, he was terminated vide order dated 10.10.1975 on the ground that his work is not satisfactory, and he was only a work charge employee at that time. He made various representations to the authorities, and ultimately, his representation was considered, and he had been given fresh appointment as Work Charge Supervisor vide order dated 01.06.1975. Thereafter, he continued in service, and ultimately, superannuated on 30.04.2005. In between that period, he was suspended from his service on 04.04.1986, and his suspension was revoked on 07.03.1987 after imposing minor penalty upon him. Earlier, petitioner has filed writ petition-3020 of 2000 claiming that the benefit of his past service for regularization and pensionable benefits shall be granted to him. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.03.2013 directing the petitioner to submit his representations before the concerned authorities, and such representation shall be decided by the authorities concerned within the stipulated time frame in accordance with law, on its own merits. Thereafter, the petitioner moved his representation on 30.04.2013, which has been decided by the respondent-2 on 14.08.2013, rejecting the representation of petitioner, holding that his service has been counted from 08.06.1976 up to 01.04.1984 under the work charge employment for calculation of his pension and his claim of counting his service from 15.11.1969 cannot be considered as there is no record available with the authorities with respect to his service from 15.11.1969. However, on collecting the information it reveals that though the petitioner was appointed as work charge employee on 12.11.1969 but his services were terminated on 01.10.1975. The said order dated 14.08.2013 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.11.1969 and he joined his service on 15.11.196