BETOSB THS M.P. SStSS S.BHIStSESlSIVSTSZBTSS&L ^-S^-^BR- fo.^tte. w?^^ ®AH© APPX.ieANT s HemaRthKutnaffTbawaifef . . sainaha Vasiehailaki ?anebaya'fe & soelai Welfase Beptlt. o/@ By.Mffeeta.lr. SmMKapur .' Dtstfe. Siarguja (M.P.') ^ Vejrsas ' . . ' NOlLAgPSICABe s 1. S-bafee ©fM.P. ; - 'Ch.rtSiagfa SseEakass', iPanehayali & goeial velSgxe Beptfe. Ballfabb Shawan, Bhapal• 2. Bireetor, . . : . : '.' PaRohaya'fe S; Soeiai VelSa.se, Madhya Pradesh Bbopal* • ; 3. ijsint'Mrae'fcos,"' ' ,. .. :. . Panobayat & Soeial wel£aiie;r, • • Blla.Bpws Ba.'TB.. BilasgB.i|».M.g. , •' : A. By.Biree-fcOE^.' : ,,: • :.•. ••.,.?•','^ ^. .^ PanahaYafe,^,. S08ii.a3^:iwe'l£are;—^;/ •S Aiiilsiisapar, jaas't'6.,S&E'gHJ:a.-'(ti«:P.»J-.,'; && ICA'R©NV/S' 19 ^ 1 'ET^'Sf»BS3.W SEyS^'SSaSWSSCi^\Si iWH AF^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt fttition (S) NoJ. 147Lof2QQ5 Petitionei- Hemanth Kumar Thawait Versus Respondents StateofM.P.(nowChliattisgarh)&ofhers (SB: Honlle Shri Satish K. Agnih^i J.) Shri SuiulSahu, Advocate forfhe petitioner, Shri N. N. Roy, Paael Lawyer for the respondents. O R D B R (Orall (Passed on fhis 2nd day ofDeceinber, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, toy fhis petition, seeks to chaUenge fhe IfigaUty andvalidityofthe impugned orderdated l.4.1995 (Annexure - C), passed by fhe respondent No.3, whereby fhe regularization granted earlier to the petitioner was cancelted on the grouad that the order was passed by the then Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Serrice, Bilaspur Division, afler his retirement on 31st Jaauary, 1993 aad fhe niemo dated 18.4.1995 (Aanexure - D) sent to the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Panchayat & SocialServlce, Siu^uja. The indisputable facts, ia brief, are tfaat b.eiag aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner preferred au Or^mal Application before fhe State Adnunistrative Tribuaal, as it was fhen ia existence. The State Adnunistrative Tribunal by order dated 8.8.1995 issued notice. On dissolution of the State Administrative Tribunal, fhe matter was transferred to this Court and reniunbered as W.P.(S) No.1147/2005. The matter came up before this Court for heanng ou 11.11.2009. On the request of the pariies the inatter was adjourned for a week. -.. ' -„- / T- Thereafter, on 17.11.2009 two weeks time as prayed by the State counsel was granted to produce the origmal order. Despite suificient opportunities, graated to fhe State/respondents, they have failed to file the origmal documents. Shri Suiul Sahu, leamed coiinsel appeariag for the petitioncr submits that fhe order regularizmg the semces of the petitioner was passed on 30.1.1993 (Aunexure - B), however, as is evident firom the second page of fhe order, copy of the same was endorsed to other officers on 2.2.1993, Thus, the reasons given by the respondents fhat the order was passed by fhe ofiBcer afiter his retirenient is without any basis. Shri N. N. Roy, leamed P&nel Lawyer, appeariag for the respondents/State, on fhe other hand, subinits fhat the order was passed on 2.2.1993 and the olficer, who passed the order, had already retired ou 31.1.1993. Thus, the orderwas without jurisdiction, accordingly the impugned order was passed. Having heard leamed counsel appeanng for the parties aad having perused the documents appended fhereto, it is evident froni the dates inentioned in the order of regularization (Annexure -B) that the Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Service, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur had signed the order on 30.1.1993 aad ttie endorseinent to other concemed officers was made ou 2.2.1993, as is the usual practice fhat after passiug ofthe order the endorseinent takes soine time for two - fhree days. Tbus, fhe contention of the respondents/State fhat fhe order was passed by ttie officer after his retiremeat is noticed to be rejected. Even otherwise, despite opportunities IH !^ :rs '• !• ;1^^^ M ~^1:, vsas 'IS l'"i'!"» .»l ,{^*N^?a*B^l^s^"?*y^s.^ iir granted to the respondents/ State, fhey have not produced any docuinent in support offheir contention for more fhan 14 years. 6. On perusal of the doctuaents it is clear fhat the unpugned order dated 1.4.1995 (Anuexure - C) aad memo dated 18.4.1995 (Armexure - D) are passed on the wrong facts that the regularization order was passed on 2.2.1993, wtuch is contrary to fhe record. Thus, fhe same deserves to be quashed. 7. For fhe reasons stated hereniabove, fhe petition is aflowed. The impugn.ed order dated 1.4.1995 (Axuiexiire - C) and memo dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure - D) are quashed. lu the facts of ttie case, no order asto coste. Thalmr Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge