CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED vs NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTE

1

CGHC010342492021 2026:CGHC:45976
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5260 of 2021
1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its
Manager (Admin), Head Office, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited Block 7-A, 2nd Floor Office Complex Sector 24,
Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - National Commission For Schedule Caste (A Constitutional Body
Set Up Under Art. 338 Of The Constitution Of India), Through Its
Secretary, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi -
110003.
2 - Shakuntala Shandey (Complainant) R/o Pajari Plant Auditorium,
Government Colony, Q. No. G -09, Chakradhar Nagar, Kelo Vihar,
Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner:- Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate appears along with
Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents :- Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

2
Order On Board
30.10.2026
1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has called in
question the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 pursuant
to a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner-
Corporation.
2. The petitioner-Corporation, by way of the present petition, has
called in question the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1,
the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, pursuant to a
complaint dated 01.10.2021 lodged by respondent No. 2 against
the officials of the petitioner-Corporation, alleging caste-based
discrimination against certain employees belonging to the
Scheduled Caste community. The complaint alleges that persons
belonging to the General and Other Backward Classes categories
were recruited against posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste
category and that three employees, who were appointed along
with other employees, were denied regularisation and promotion
on account of their caste. It is the case of the petitioner-
Corporation that the services of the employees appointed in the
year 2012 were terminated on the ground that their appointments
were not against sanctioned posts, which led to litigation before
this Court in WPS No. 5549/2014, dismissed vide order dated
16.08.2016; however, the Division Bench, in W.A. No. 433/2016
and connected appeals, vide judgment dated 09.11.2016,
directed their reinstatement, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble

3
Supreme Court upon dismissal of SLP (C) No. 36115/2016. The
petitioner-Corporation contends that respondent No. 1 has
exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 338 of the Constitution of
India by initiating proceedings in respect of issues which have
already been adjudicated by this Court and affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, and has thereby sought to reopen
matters concluded by judicial determination.
3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“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 entire proceeding
based on complaint of respondent no. 02 before
respondent no. 01, in the interest of justice.
10.3. To set aside the letters dt. 21.10.2021 (P-5) &
dt. 01.12.2021 (P-7) in the interest of justice.
10.4. To pass any other order as it may deem fit, in
the interest of justice.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation submits
that respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint before the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes, pursuant to which respondent
No. 1 initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner-
Corporation. The petitioner-Corporation has challenged the said
proceedings on the ground that the issues raised in the complaint
have already been adjudicated by this Court in WPS No.
5549/2014, and the judgment passed therein was subsequently
dealt with by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 433/2016 and

4
connected appeals. The judgment of the Division Bench was
further assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
affirmed the decision, with the modification that the back wages
awarded by this Court were reduced to 25%. Learned counsel
further submits that the concerned employees have already been
reinstated and regularised in service and, therefore, no subsisting
grievance survives for consideration in respect of the issues
raised in the complaint. In such circumstances, respondent No. 1
could not have initiated proceedings on the same subject matter,
which has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. It is, therefore, contended that the issuance of notice and
initiation of proceedings by respondent No. 1 are without
jurisdiction and contrary to law.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
submits that respondent No. 2 has already moved an application
before the concerned Commission seeking withdrawal of the
complaint lodged by her. He further submits, on instructions, that
respondent No. 2 has filed an application along with a document
expressing his intention not to pursue the complaint pending
before the National Commission any further.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that no further proceedings are required to be

5
continued pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2.
Firstly, the issues forming the subject matter of the complaint
have already travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have
attained finality, and, therefore, the same cannot be reopened or
adjudicated afresh by the National Commission in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the notice issued by respondent No. 1 initiating
proceedings on the basis of such complaint is not sustainable in
law. Secondly, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
has submitted that respondent No. 2 has already filed an
application seeking withdrawal of the complaint before the
concerned Commission supported by an affidavit and has
expressed her intention not to pursue the same any further.
8. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, continuation of
the proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the
impugned notice issued by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and stands disposed of.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha