Wm Lgf‘gsgNCZ/té‘i 200 mm (Wu) WWW ammwwi‘a? WWW! Wm ’%w?rm ’m’wm SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra M ohan Shrivastava, J. 31.3.2010 counsel for the petitioners. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, This petition has been ii dated 15.7.1999 (Annexure A petitioners earlier Vide order d4 cancelled. Case of the petitioners Part Time Cleaner in Govern 5th 8r, 6th March, 1990 and po ted at different places which have been indicated in their order of ap ointment placed on record as Annexure 3, 4, 5, 7 8s 8. The petitioners Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. G ovt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. led by the petitioner aggrieved by order -1) by which promotion granted to the ated 23.3.1999 (Annexure A—2) has been is that they Were initially appointed as nt Veterinary Hospital Vide order dated s order, all the petitioners joined and started working as Full Tirn Cleaner at different place of posting. However, Vide impugned ord r dated 15.7.1999 (Annexure A—l), the earlier order dated 23.3.199’ was cancelled with immediate effect giving reference to a letter dared 3.7.1999 of the Director, Veterinary Services and letter dated 6.7 1999 of the Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Raipur. hile working as Part Time Cleaner were considered for their appointm t/ promotion on full time basis and Vide order dated 23.3. 1999, they a1 Were appointed as Fuil Time Cleaner on Collector rate. Pursuant to i Wmfaia? mmm mwma‘ Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the validity of the order of cancellation, is that the impugned order contained no reasons whatsoever. It is submittedvthat the action is absolutely arbitrary and based on no reason no basis; Petitioners were conferr benefit of Full Time Cleaner on Collector rate basis after due scrutiny by the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee. The impugned order only refers to some letter but did not contain any reason as to Why the earlier be nefit was withdrawn. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents, referring to averments made :in the return is that the promotion/appointment of the petitioners as Full Time Cleaner was temporary and it did not confer on them, right to continue. It is submitted that in View of the decision taken by the Director, Veterinary Services and indicated vide his letter dated 3.7”. 1999, the promotion granted earlier was cancelled. I have heard learned nsel for the parties and perused the record. Having considered the s bmissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I am un’ ‘ble to uphold the impugned order dated 15.7.1999 canceling the er order dated 23.3.1999 by which petitioners were appointed Full Time Cleaner. Neither in the impugned order nor in the re. urn any reason has been stated by the respondents for the said acti n. The stand of the respondents that petitioners’ appointment as 11 Time Cleaner was temporary is not reflected from their order of pr motion dated 23.3.1999. The impugned C u e i s mmW WWW '35 ”mm? §~ wmam order only refers to some communication made by the Director Vide his letter dated 3.7.1999 and also some instructions of the Joint Director being dated 6.7.1999. However, none of these communicates have been placed on record much less any material placed on record to show that there was some justifiable legal and valid basis for issuing impugned order of cancellation. It cannot be disputed that the order impugned was passed on 15.7. 1999, adversely affecting the petitioners and visited with civil consequences, as a higher status of Full Time Cleaner conferred earlier was cancelled and petitioners relegated to their part time status. Obliv sly, the action could not have been taken without just and prop r reasons and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The impugned order therefore appears to be devo of any reasons or basis and is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Co stitution of India. Consequently, the order of reversion passed on 15.7.1999 is set aside. However, considering circumstances of the case, petitioners would be entitled to be treaed as Full Time Cleaner without any intervention from the date the were reverted, though, without actual benefits in the form of arrears f pay on the post of Full Time Cleaner. Petition is accordingly allow to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to cost. Mohan Shrivastava Manindra Judge i u i e ’