Dilip Kumar Bhatt V. State Of Chhattisgarh and Chhattisgarh High Court

WPS/4246/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Dilip Kumar Bhatt, a retired District Judge, who sought judicial relief against the rejection of his claim for the 'super time scale' in his judicial service. Bhatt was initially appointed to the Higher Judicial Services in 1994 and became eligible for the super time scale in 2003, following the recommendations of the Sethy Commission. His claim was deferred due to a pending departmental enquiry, which was later dropped in 2011. However, his representation for the super time scale was rejected in 2015 without any reasons, leading to this petition. The court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking in reasoning, thus violating principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822312 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers
• Laws Referred To: Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Shartein) Niyam, 1994, Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Shartein) Niyam, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TRIVENI SAHU; RANBIR MARHAS; VENKATESH PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: T K JHA; PARTH JHA
• Keywords: Departmental Enquiry; Super time scale; Judicial pay commission; Higher judicial services
• Section: 5(2)

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:60983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4246 of 2016 * - Dilip Kumar Bhatt S/o Late Shri C.D. Bhatt, Aged About 65 Years Retd. District Judge, R/o B-Il, Debar Pink City Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law) Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distirct Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh High Court, Through Registrar General, Bodri, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Triveni Shanker Sahu, Panel Lawyer Ranbir Singh Marhas and Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by quashing the memo dated 04.05.2015 (ANNEXURE P/1) and direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the name of petitioner for grant of suppertime scale from the date of vacancy or from the date his juniors were granted suppertime scale, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.12.17 11:15:40 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Higher Judicial Services on 26.05.1994 and he was granted District Judge (Selection Grade Scale) in the year 2000 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner became eligible for grant of District Judge (Super Time Scale) in the year 2003 after completing 03 years in the selection grade according to recommendation of Judicial Pay Commission (Sethy Commission). The name of the petitioner was considered for super time scale on 25.03.2009 and the matter was differed as departmental enquiry was pending against him. The petitioner got retired from services in the month of May 2011 and thereafter a decision was taken by Full Court of the High Court on 21st June, 2011 to drop the departmental enquiry. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.05.2015, against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was appointed as Member of Higher Judicial Services on 26.05.1994 and he was extended benefit of selection grade scale in the month of July, 2000 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He would contend that according to the governing service rules, the petitioner became eligible to get benefit of super time scale after completion of 03 years of services of selection grade scale and therefore, a representation was made. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner was considered in the year 2009 and it was differed on account of pendency of the departmental enquiry. He would submit that the departmental enquiry was dropped after retirement of the petitioner vide Resolution of Full Court of High Court dated 21.06.2011, but Printed from counselvise.com 3 representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 2 by non-speaking order on 04.05.2015. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. T.K. Jha. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas would argue that the petitioner was appointed according to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Shartein) Niyam, 1994 and to claim benefit of super time scale minimum 11 years of service was required. He would contend that the petitioner completed 11 years of service in the year 2005 and in the year 2003, he was not eligible to claim said benefit. Mr. Marhas would submit that the Rules 1994 were replaced by Rules 2006 with effect from 07.04.2006. It is contended that according to Rule 5 (2) of the Rules 2006, the minimum 03 years of service as District Judge (Selection Grade Scale) was mandatory to claim benefit of super time scale. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner was considered and it was turned down as departmental enquiry was pending against him. He would submit that the petitioner got retired from services in the month of May 2011 and thereafter departmental enquiry was dropped. Mr. Marhas would submit that on these premises, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.05.2015. He would further submit that sufficient documents have been placed on record to substantiate that the petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of super time scale. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 4 5. Mr. Triveni Shanker Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would support the contention made by Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the instant petition. 7. It is well settled principles of law that the orders without valid reasons are legally flawed, violating principles of natural justice and showing presumption of non-application of mind as the reasons are heart and soul of decision and an order without reason is fundamentally contrary to judicial process norms, making it no order in the eye of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785, while dealing with similar issue in paragraphs no. 23 to 27 held as under:- “23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts. 24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton’s Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Printed from counselvise.com 5 Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons. 26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that the courts and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the court. 27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair Printed from counselvise.com 6 decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v. Crabtree, 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), there are apt observations in this regard to say “failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove. 8. The order impugned Annexure P/1 was passed by respondent No. 2 on 04.05.2015. Perusal of the order would show that in a cryptic manner, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Respondent No. 2 has not assigned reasons while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner joined services as Member of Higher Judicial Services on 26.05.1994 and completed 11 years of service in the year 2005. As pleaded by the petitioner, he was extended benefit of selection grade scale in the month of July 2000. It appears that the petitioner was eligible and entitled to get benefit of super time scale according to the provisions of Rules 1994 after completion of 11 years of service and further according to the provision of Rule 5 (2) of Rules 2006 after completion of 03 years of service as District Judge (Selection Grade Scale). A departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner, but it was dropped due to his retirement vide Resolution of Full Court of the High Court dated 21.06.2011 and thereafter the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.05.2015 by respondent No. 2 without assigning any reasons. Printed from counselvise.com 7 9. The fallout of above discussion is that the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 04.05.2015 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No. 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. Respondent No. 2 shall pass a well reasoned order while considering the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of super time scale. 10. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation within a period of 15 days and it is expected that the authority concerned shall decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti Printed from counselvise.com "