B-S'.! IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYPi PRflDESH AT JABALPUR ^r U.P.NO. -OF 1995 RESPONDENTS PETITIQNER R.K.DEWANGAN son of Pyarelal Dewangan aged years, Upper Division Clerk, Raipur Disttt. Fish Farmera' Agancy, Raipur residenl of Brahmanpara Raipur. VERSUS 1. RAIPUR DISTT. FISH FftRMER'S DEVELDPMENT AGENCY, RAIPUR through its Chairman and Collector, Raipur , H.O. Colleclorat.e, Raipur. 2. CH1EF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RfiIPUR DISTRICT FISH FARMERS AQENCY, RftIPUR H.O. Collectorale, Rai pur • 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MfiTSYODHOG, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF MfiDHYA PRfiDESH through Secretary Krishi (Pashu Chlkitsa) Vibhag, Bhopal• PETITION UNDER ftRT. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE MRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION^N THE NATURE OF WRIT ETC. :^il^' HIGH_C^IJRT QE_CHHATT!SGARH AT B1I.ASPUR Writ Petition. No. 758 of 1995 PetitioTiRr : R. K. DcwaTigan Versus RespoTidents : Raipnr nistrict, Fish Faniaer's Development Agency others Siaade Bench; HonTile Mr. Justi.ee Satish K. ABnib.otiri. Shri S. P. SIiarma, Advocate for Uie Petitioner. None for the R;spondei'!ts No. 1. and 2. Shri V. V. S. Moprthy, Deputy Advocate Geneisl with Shri I. N. Shrivastava, Pane1 lawver for the i-esDOTidents No. 3 and 4. w QRAL ORDER ( 22ndAugust, 2006) Tbe petitioner was iTiitially appointed as Clerk-cuin- Typist (Lower Division Clerk) in the pay scale of Rs. 169-300 vide orier dated 31.1.1974 (AnTiexiire P,'2). Ttiereaft.er <he petitioner was proinoted on t.he post of'Jpper Divisk>n Clerk (1J.D.C.) in the pay scate ofRs. 975- 1450 vide order dated 20.3. 1989 (AnnexiUT; P/7). T1ie petitioner coQtiiitied OQ the postofU.D.C. tiU 28dl Febniaiy, 1995, when he was reverteci to the poat of L.D.C. vide orrler da.ted 28.2.1995 (AiMiexui^ P/12). Shri S. P. Shanna, teanied counsel appearing for tlie petitioner siilimits tl'iat. the. impugned oiTler dated 28.2.1995 visits with civi1 consequences aod since fhe sanie was passed withoiit following tlie principles of nat.iinal jiistice and wifliout afForfiing any oppoi'hinity of bearing to thc petitioner, the Ot-der deseives to be qiiashed on the simple groiind that tti" orfer is vitiated on accoiint ofnon-conipliaHce of tbe priiiciples of natiiral jiistice and fair piay in action. It is furtlier contended tliat. iinrlRr the provisiona of the Madhya Piadesh GoweiTimerit. Sei-vant.s (TempoiTiiy <°» Qiiasi-PerBianent Seni'ice) Rules, :alltiil^« .-^. "S3%% 1960 (for short ttie Riites, 1960'), wliich riss been adqpted by the^ RtEite of d-ihflttisgarli, the petitionRr 'had acquirRd the qiias^ peminnent sfsf'is in service iincler Rii1e 3 A OT) liaving compSeted five yeai's' temporary sen'ice on ttie post of U.0,0. Thc service nf thc netitTOner coiiW not have been tenninaterl on any otber eroiind. except, by strictly fri1lo*<<?ing thc principles of natiira.1 just'ce and fair p1ay in action. nespite several notices t.o the respondRnts No. 1 to 2 i.e. Raipur District Fis1i FanTier's Development Agency, REiipiir and Chief RxRCTlt'ive Officer, R.aipDr District Fish Fannei-s Agency, Raipur, none appearer! on tlieir behalf. However, the reply on helial'f of t1ie respondents No. 1 to 3 was filed on 12.4.1QC)5, In the repty tlie p1ea of the R'.spondents No. 1 and 2 is that fliere slionkl be a dear dedaration of qiiasi permanent statiis iinder Riile 3 and 3 A of tbe Rnles. 1Q60. It is sdmitted hv tl-ie nRsponflents No. 1 nnd 2 fhat t.he s»vi Riiles are anplicaMc, as -•t is not thc case. of tne I'espondents No. 1 aiid 2 that. the saifl Riiles are not applicaWe to the petitioner. It. was fnrther stateri in t1ic writtRTi siihmjssions that. since tlicre was no vacancy on thc post of IJ.n.C. t.he services of the petitioner was revertctl to tlie lower post. STiri V. V. S. Mooi-t1iy, Iramed Dcpiil^r Advocate General, assisted by Rhri I. N. Rlirivastava; Panet 1,awyRr, appearing for tlie responrients No. 3 BTi<1 4 srihmits ttiat t1iis case Tias to be contested bv tbe responc'eTits No. 1. and 2 as the State i.e. Respondents No. 3 and 4 5-iave no ii'iterest in tbe case and there is no grievance ofthe petitjoner against tbe respondents No, 3 and 4. On flie. qiiestion of applicability of Riite 3 of the Riiles 1960, Shri Mooi'thv ii") his usiial frankness and faimess siibmits that in tbe pi-esR-nt case where the petitioner lias coinp1et.ed 5 yeai-s of temporasy i 111 •»..- ^aq lioiu astx> aiff. so 'a3f,'u»K jb s.mafi ffiiff A> sioafi aajy^ p9}3[duio'j 9tg. Qufitoya^ .mf pafitruKf aq yni yi/ifs uotsstiuufo^) aouu»y at|qry a'tf^ /iq liuip&'jas Siy t^ loud pa.l'dpu.f.t St/t^ fuvi'.ias ftrdutiii'daof) 'o tfJfifat soifuys •u 'paiut&a.i si uotsstuauo^? 33UU9S o.yqry »i;'» iffyii uopoynsuco y.tai/ffi /(y '.'du fi'syui asoo ai{} so 'aotiuas/o s.ivaR aiuf.io sjoaff aa.rtff p»;a;(:.4u<»ay; ffuruoyaj .lof p3funao »ci (cru gints 'suti} o} yiui; iMO.if .IOU.OIIOQ sif; Rq panssj stiofpru^stif fitio ^o S8{ru •fticrtii}tfu3».i si^ fo suoisiito^d <sz{} oy. Surp.tcrjyo fusutfwoSdo fuojoAua^ sitj o; .<ou(? pajapua.* sntf fuoiuas fiisuiu.imiuQ o ipn{ai asuuas v 'pa.tiriba.i jEou sa uotSsiuiUAo^) a.fuuas o.'iqry aiff t(7iffi uoifofpisuco aj.svoi (o) - 'fua'iitfuiodtJo 'tio Jb asoo 9iff 'ui 'yp puo ^,' sspu ^o »sodin(J avff jcy '¥V£» „•s.iap.io asta't.ia'tff.o fl'j.uoqfrto BtllfltfodcfD srtf} Biiffuai uf psp.iwja.i aq o; siiosoa.i .lofssafun sou'uas yu&uoiu.tyu-is.oriu Uf ac{ 0} pauiaap aq [[tnfs apou aq pffus uoffLi^ups/p iprit, tpfifai fo pacfeat Ut fsoi! jo cK/ifl.iDS u uf si.te.wfi aitif .ivf iljsrwrtu.ffuco 'crjuuas lito.ioiluiaf. ut u»9qsoq fnq pwissi uyyq ?uu i>tyt( fc' y;ru Jb (tt/ ast'iiip ispun 'ttOtfii.iwpDp D liiolfin /o 'f^ddsaj. 'u'i •fuoiu9» ftis'uiu.iwiof} •yg ['pouad 'ifons j.o f^-dSiff.t ui Sa'.fuoinoyo ptfo Rocl Stt{ ffffcup o^ p'diitu{[t> itadq soy fu'ffUds fuau.ttuaaoQ »ty 'uoifcxsoft yiy .<a^E> R.^afoip9ttitui fUaftuR.o^uia-a.i i<o(fri 'a.iirqin aOia.ias {ortpjD fo pouaf! 'o so pap.inix} aq iftit^s uotfCKioa 'o Buunp xita.i'dsiif ^WAiq/o pou»3piio •ffiu sfiff.jo s>'aKudin<J aiff. ^oj. 3310.S3S fitoioSuia^ snonutfuvj GujfittfuUK, •uj-iwcftfuoybcyj •atti'; Of •ciuifi. uio.if d'lissi fitnii ^ou.iwtdf) at[). Sf) suofpTUtsitf ifnis, q'ffin ifjiiup.iwxfo ut !'fJ»ffaftf^ o; uoi'f'o.ti.'pap 'o panssi svi{ 'ft}rjocfu'j fuifUuuitad-isofS) o ui •fiiawfiofduia .loj. rafJf>^m.p puo yoin 'suoiftjoifffOtib 'aStf /o f3'dids»^ Uf ft)yiqij}fits Sfl{ Of tiO piflfsifOS f}uf3l{ Rjtf.iwiffrtts SuqUttx&fo »i,y /t (ff) (rucf '&t'oaK yanp uiyig a^ouf ^ufft[Stiwi:uffv-(u f.sui! .10 30I/USS SUl-V, 311} Ut aayu'ds fiti-i.ioiluiaf •ui iw»i[ !sVt{ aq /i ft) -'aouuys fuaitt.'u.ttaii -iscmo vj aq uf paaiaap aq [[tfqs fUOfUifa- 'fu'dtittu.eKtuQ y ^- -uaptinaiaq pa+onb si 0961 'S3[ity aq.tjo y apia '0961 S3tny 31tttjo v £a[na Japuii Aiessaoau si uoi^&iB[3ap ou 'SDULOS s in ^t -^ Having beairt leamed coiinsel for flie parties and having peiiised the recorrls appcrided to fhe petition arad reply, it is evident that. the nnpiignerl oiTJer was psssed mttioiit foiloxwing the priTiciples of nafiii'al justice anr! fsn' p^ay in action. It is we11 settlerl principle oflaw that any order which visits with cfvil c'onsequences a.nd prcjudice tlie case of a goyemment employee cannot be passed without affordini the oppoi-hinity ofhearing to the employee concei-n^ed. In fjie present case it is adinitted position tbat no opporhinity of 'Siearing was afforded to the petitioner and as snch the inipiigned order dated 28.2.1995 (Ann.-xiire P/ 12) is vitiated. The SuBiT'ine Court ia catena of deci.sioas i.e. H., L. TreSian ai Vs. of & others { (1989) 1 SCC 764} and Vs. ofladia and othera (AIR 1994 SC 2480) has c3ear1y observed that t.be rediiction in I'snk, witboiit show cause notice and without opportiini'iy of faearing silioi.ints to flagrant tnolation oftbe princmlRS ofnat.uralji.istjce. The Si.i.pirme Court in the oa.se ti. Vs. of Goa {{1999) 8 SCC .378} held that tbe benefit could not have been taken away witlioijt affording an opportiinity ofheariiig. For the reasons stated above the inipugned orier dated 28.2.1995 (Annexir-c P/ 12) is q^iashed. W';t1-i i-Rgard to the payment of ameai~s of wages, since tbe petitioner has not becn working on thc nost oFIJ.D.C., be is not entitled to fu!l gn-Rars ofwages. Howerer, in tbe facts and circiiinstance ofthe case when the iuipugned order was passed witjiout folloiving tbe pi-uiciples ofnBtiii'al jiistice and thc pefitioner bas been deprived ofhis rightfiil wages, the petitioner is entitled to 50% an'ears of back wages with revisions j-a his pay scale as adinissiltlR in law. The iietition is accoir)jnglY anoweri. No onleras to costs. - -- -—— ._. II Sd/- Satish K. Agniht Judge '^.