1N THE gig-H ccum: 013mg}? gr JABJExlgyg, writ gamtian Naufe. §§9$£ 1996. PETxggmmg .. LAX‘MAN PKQSQD MI$HR$ aged 45 years, S/c Shri Baldec PraSad Mishra, Lmwer Divi$ioa Coark, Krism Ups—‘3 Marxdi BE-TETAR‘Q, Disfit. Duré’ . WvEwg; RE$E3ONDENTS. g .. KRISHI UPAJ I‘VEAI‘ml’ SM‘v‘IETI E4E@$RA , TgQHFJwI L BEMETARQ DI 3T7? . DURG . gEgggoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF CONSTETUTION OF IENDIAM B HI\ GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MN Wn't Petition No. 2800 of 1996 1 \_// Petitioner Laxman Prasad Mishra Vcrsus Respondent Kn'shi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bemetara Single Bench: Hog’ble Mr. Justice 8utish K. Ayihotrl. ’Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Samta .Jain, Advocate on behalf o Advocate for the nesponden’t. f Shri RS. Marhas, ORAL ORDER (17th April, 2006) The petitioner was im'h'ally appointed as Peon/Chowkidar on 1K7.1973 thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Nakedar on 9. 11. 1976. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on go upported by an fivit of its authenh'city. Despite the otde damd s afda r 18.1.1983 the impugned order dated 1.7.1996 was passed, which is uer challenge in his petition. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue t on the post of Lower Division er, conuary to the condition No. 3 of the Clk promotion order dated 1.1981 and order dated 18.1.198 for about a 4.5 3 period of 15 years. The lespondent wok up from its slumber and passed the order demotion on 17.1996 (Annexure P/S) without aEording a opportunit o hearing or without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 1.7.1996 was passed Without following the basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action. The impugned older visits with civil consequences which aEects the petitioner ersely and the prejudice is caused to the persn concerne. It is well settled rinciple of law that an order which ad'ects the interest of an employee adversely cannot be se without following the principle of natal justi and fa play in action. The Supreme Court in han U d h 4 Bagw shukla Vs. nion of India an oters (AIR 1994 SC 280) has held uner :- “The appellant has obviously ben visited with cil consequnces but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a dagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suEer huge iinancial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the eii‘ect of an employee sudering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.” 4. Miss Samta Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shii R.S. Marhas, counsel for the respondent admits the fact that the petitioner was allowed to , nd e of . n y f adv o d p pasd ur ce ir , as d e vi e @ continue for 15 years despite the condition No. 3 in the promotion order dated14.5.1981 whereby the petitioner was rcquired to pass manic cxammauon w1thm a penod of one year 1t was fuxther admitted that the Impugned order was passed w1thout 1ssumg show cause nohce or $0Mmg any opportunity of healing to the peh'tioner, though the petitioner has acquired the right aiier working on the post of LoWer Division Clerk for more than 15 yeaxs. . After having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the i records appended to the petition, it is indisputably established that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk with the condition that the petitioner would be required .to obtain Mattie Examination Certidcate within a period of one year Even otherwise the respondent has not followed its order dated 14 5 1981 which prowdes for obtaining the Mame Examination Cerhiicate Within one year period by pe ‘tting the petih'oner to work for about 15 years. If the order‘dated 'r 18 1 1983 as produced by the respondent in the course of hearing, Without affidavrt is accepted There was no necess1ty of passing the impugned order dated 1.7. 1996 whereby the petitioner was demoted to the post of Nakedar without an'ording any opportunity of heating to the petin‘oner, who has; acquired rightto hold the post of Lower Division Clerk by virtue ’of the appointment order dated 14.5.1981 and by continuing for 15 year i thereafter on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The impugned order has caused prejudice to the petitioner and the impugned Order was passed in violation of the principle of natural-justice. The Supreme Court in Gajanan L. Pernekar Vs. State of Goa and another { (1999)' 8 SCC 378}, Where identical facts were involved and there was a clear breach of principles of natural justice and violation of fair play-in-action,. held that the benefit could not have been taken away without aEording an opportunity of hearing. s 6. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The impugngd order dated 1.7.1996 is quashed. The g, petitioner is emitled to all the consequential beneots. No older as to costs. Sdl- ’ Satish K. Agnihotri 1 7 9999?