The trial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the Special Court under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 who has jurisdiction under the Act of 1989.
Petitioners would assail the common order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through its Registrar General transferring ST No. 148/99 (State v. Smt. Kiran Singh and Others) and ST No. 71/95 (sic 71/99) (State v. T.P. Ratre) along with one civil suit and two civil appeals from the Court of Shri L.R. Thakur, Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (for short “the ASJ”) to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur (for short “the SJ”) for re-hearing the cases in accordance with law.
Excellent question that emanates for consideration is, where recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission and statutory Recruitment Rules namely the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, are at variance; which has to be followed in making selection and appointment for the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution of decree against the present legal heir Hardayal Singh.
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein Shri Virendra Pandey seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No. 2 Shri Narayan Singh questioning his appointment and for his consequent removal from the post of Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Selection and appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) has to be made in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Denial of benefit of rehabilitation, which includes employment, to a married daughter of affected family is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Magnificent question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is whether the State Government is justified in impliedly excluding married daughter of the affected/displaced family from consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, as amended, on the ground of her marriage.
It is quite vivid that the implied exclusion of daughter-in-law from the fray of consideration by the State Government without considering the fact as to whether the daughter-in-law is dependent or not is constitutionally impermissible. The Government must provide for consideration of all those persons who are dependants of the deceased Government servant.
Petitioner’s father Shri Hemlal while working as Electrical Helper in the respondent/SECL died in harness on 14.09.1994 leading to grant of monthly monetary compensation in lieu of employment on 3.1.1995 to the extent of Rs. 2000/- per month to the petitioner’s mother in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement-V (hereinafter referred to as “NCWA-V”), which she accepted without protest, but immediately thereafter on 15.6.1995 the petitioner’s mother also made a request to the SECL authorities that his son i.e. present petitioner is minor and therefore, her right to claim dependant employment for her son be kept open and intact. Her son i.e. petitioner herein became major and on 16.5.2005 the petitioner’s mother again made an application to the SECL authorities for dependant employment to the petitioner, which was not considered by the SECL authorities leading to filing of the present writ petition for dependant employment in terms of the NCWA-V for considering his claim as per policy prevailing at the time of death of the petitioner’s father.
