::"?TO ®BSS!I Ea^sa! ':%^'c'^^-;;l%':s^:?;%s^ PETITIONER ^:^Si t":''%:M IN THE HIGH COURT QE MADHYA PRftDESH AT JJiBAI-PUR -€> U.P.NO.—-—L-OF 1995 ^^/ J^'^.>^/<<: ^^^,.-^":'^ (LS, 3. 4. PARIKSHITDAS Son of Manmohan Das, Lower Division CIerk, Ralpur District Ftsh Farmers ^gency, Raipur resldent of Mana colony, Mana Tahsil and Distt. Ratpur M.P. , VERSU8 RftIPUR DISTT. FISH FARMER'S DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RfiIPUR thrdugh its Chairman and Collector, Raipyr , 1-f.O. Collectorate, Ralpur. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFRICER, RAIPUR DISTRICT FISH FfiRMERS AGENCY, RflIPUR H.O. Collectorate, Raipur. THE DIRECTOR OF MfiTSYODHOG, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal THE ^GOVERNMENT OF MftDHYA PRADEBH- through Secretary Krishi (Pashu Chikitsa) Vibhag, Bhppal. PETITION UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANGE OF AN APPROPRIftTE URIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE^NfiTUR&.,OE^yRIT_ETC. - s« . Ji.L.^2.. -• t. AF< HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 759 of 1.995 Petitioner : PariJishitdas Vei-sus Respondents : Raipur District, Fish Fannei-'s Dcvelopinent Agency ottiers Starfe Beach: Hon'ble Mr, Justice Satish •2--z -g-° & Shri S. P. Sharina, Advocate for fhe Petitioner. None for the respoDdents No. 1 and 2. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Sbri I. N. Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the respondents No. 3 aud 4. "-» 2. ORAL ORDER ( 22ndAugust, 2006) The petitioDcr was mitia31y appointed as Pisherman by tbe responclcnts No. 1 and 2, teniporarily, vide order dated 26.7.1975 (Annexiire P/2). (t appears that tbe petitioner was tbereafter appointed on the post of Attendaiit Wliile workiag as Attendaiit the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. (I-.ower Divisjon Clerk), tenipoi-arily, on the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420, vide orier dated 22.11.1989 (Annexuiie P/3). The petitioner continued on the post of L.D.C. t31 28th Febniary, 1995, when he was I'everted to fhe post of Peon (Attendant) vide order dated 28.2,199S (Annexnre P/4). Shri S- P. Shanna, leamed coiinsel appearing for the petitioner submits that. the n-npugned orfer rlated 2.8.2.1995 visits with civil conseqiiences and since tbe same was passed without following the prinfiples of natural justice and wittaout affordmg any opportiinity ofheariag to the petitioncr, t1ie orier desei-ves to be qiiashed ou the 'it- ; ^^i9i 2 \ 23 simipte giTQiiDd tbat the or'cler is vitiated on account of non- coiTipliance of t1ie principles of nahiral jiistice and fair play in actjon. It is fiirther contended fliat under the nrovisions of the Madbya Prsdesh Govemment Servants (Tempoiai^' &. Quasi- PennaTient Service) Rules, 1960 (for short the Rules, 1960^, which tias been adapted by the State of Clihattisgarh, the petitioner had acqiiired tbe quasi permanent. statiis in service under Rule 3 A on Tiaving coinpleted five yeai-s' tempoi'ary service on the post ofL.D.C. The service ofthe petitioner cou1d not bave been termuiated on any other groiind, except., by strictly foUowing thc. principles ot natural jnstice aud fair play in action. Despite several notices to tiie I'espoi'sdents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Raipur District Fisli Fannei-'s Development Agency, Raipiir and Chief Rxecutive OfBcer, Raipur District. Fish Famiei-s Agency; Ra.ipur, none appeaicd on their behalf. However, the. rep1y on their beTialf was filed on 12.5.1995. In the. rep1y the p1ea ofthe respondents No. 1 and 2 is that thei-e should be a. cleai' declaTation of quasi pennanent statiis under Rule 3 and 3 A of tbe Riiles, 1960. It is adinitted hy t.he respondents No. 1 and 2 that tbe said Rules are applicable, as it is not the case offlie respondents No. 1 and 2 tliat the said Riiles are; not applicable to the petitioner. It was fiirther stated in the written subniissions that. since tTie)~e was no vacancy on the post of 1^.0.0. tbe services of tbe petitioner was neverted to fhe lower post. Sliri V. V. S. MoortTiy, teamed Depnty Advocatc General, assisted by Shri I. N. Sbrivastava, Pane! La'wyer, appeariiig for tbe respondents No. 3 and 4 snbniits tbat thia case has to be contested by the respoTidents No. 1 anrl 2 as the State i.e. Respondersts No. 3 %- B^ •i .-::':s^'" and 4 have no mten:st in the case and there is no erievance of the petitioner against t.he respondents No. 3 and 4. 5. On the qitestion of applicabilily of Rilte 3 of the Rilles 1960, Shri Moortby in his iisiial frankness aTid fainiess submits that hi tlie pi^esent case wbere the petitioner has completed 5 years of tempoi'ary sei-vice, no declaration for aftaming quasi pcmianent status, is necessary iinder Rule 3 ofthe Riiles 1960. Rule 3 ofthe t- Riiles, 1960 is qiioted bereunder:- 3. A Govemme.nl seniaji.t shall he deemed to be in quasi- permanent sefvice, - /i) if he has heen in temporajy seivice in the sa.me servrife or posf. cantiraiovsly fnr more thjan ihrce years; and (ii) if thf a.ppoiniing <wd,tiririty being salisfind as 1,o his suitahflity in rffspcft ofage, qualific'a.tions, work and chara/cSer for fm.ploym.ent in a. quasi-permanfnt capwaty, has issued. a df'daration 1,o fhat effect, in accordn.nce with sitch instiuctions as the Govemor jnay issuefrom. tinu' i.o timc. [ExpIanatio'ii-Tn cximpuiifvj can'l.immvs temporaiy seniice for the purposes of thif nile and penod of break in senrice duriiig a ycu-afton shall he eounted as a period of actiAa) seivice wlwre, upr>n rf-employmeni irniTiediately afler tfw vacalion, the GovemTnent seniant has been. aBovfed to draiff his pay and alloiuana's in resped of such period..] 3A. Goveinjn.eni servcmt in respeci of i»homa declaration under dause (ii) ofwle 3 has not been issued but has been in teinpormy senrioe continuouslyforfive yeavs in a servicf orposi in respeci of which such dedciTalion caidd he made shaV be deemed to be in qiiasi-permanen.t. senncff un^esff for reasons (o be recorded. in wiiting ihe appoinling authorify othfinvise ordevs, "3AA- For the pitrpofse of ndes 3 and. 3A, in Ihe ctise of an appointinfnl,- (a) iifhere (•onsuUafwn with fhf Psihlic Sefvice Comjmssion is nof refyj.irRd, a seniice ichich a. Govemment seivcint has rendered prior fo his iemporary appoiniment ajccording to ffie provisions of the recnj.ifinent ivles or a.ny insfn^ctions ~t- ^s 3 issued by the Gooemor fivsn iime to time, shall noi. be (nunfed for reckonivig the complefed threR VRai-s or fbie yeans nfsennce, as ihe ca.se may be; /?3'1 luhere cnnsultalion with the Pviblic Sennce Cominission is retyiired, a seniioc ivfvdz a Goi.>ern.ment sejvant has renff.erRd pririr to his sefection by ihe PiMic Sefvice, Com.Tnission shaS not he a)unted for reckoning Ihe cnmpleted three yearf: orfive yeavs ofsen/ice, as fhe case m.aii he H.qving hearcl 1eame<~1 coimsel for tTie pai'ties and hnvi.ng penised tTic iT'coT-ds appeorSRd t.o the petition and re.ply, it is evident that tbe inipiigBecl onler was passed wifliout following the principles of uatiiral justice and 'fah- play in action. It is well settled principle of 1aw that any orfier 'wbicli visits with the ciyil consequences and pnejildice t1ie case of a govemment einployee canBot be passed without affording the opportiinity of hearirig to the. eniployee concemed. In tlie pn'sent case it is admitt.ed position that ao opportainity of heamig was afiForded to the petitioncr and as such flie impiigned oiTlRrdatRd 28.2.1995 (Annexiire P/4) is vitiated. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions i.e. H. I<, Tyehaa and Vs. nf & {(1989) 1 SCC. 764} a"d Vs, Unfoa of Imdia and others (AIR 1994 SC 2480) has clearly ohserved that the reduction in rank, withoiit show caiise notice and without opportiinity of hearing ainoiiDts to flagrant violation of the principles of natLii-al jtistice. Tbe Si.iprenie Court ia. the case of Chijanan L- Pernekar V-s. State of Goa another { (1999) 8 SCC 378| held that the benefit coidd not have been taken away withoiit affordmg a.n opportiinity ofhearing. Por the. reaaons stated above tlie impiigned oi-der fiated 28.2.1995 (Annexure P/4) is qiiashed. ^ .,^«^.:...w;?wBw«"atw;'*"".,<.ijlrjl4i^^ ^~!-;.'yi".:fc? ^ „, :;.u.!.aaiMi o. U6 Tbakur With rega-ri to the psyi'nf.nt ofan-ears ofwages, since thc petitiooer Tias nof been working on the post ofL.D.C., he is not entitJed to full nrrears of wages. However, in the facts and c'irciimstance of the ca.se whca the imp^igned orrler was passed withoiit foUowiTig the principles of natiii'al justice, and the petitioner has been deprived of his rightfiil wagcs, the petitioner is cntrtled to 50°'{> aiTeai^ of back wages with wvisions in his pay scs3e as admissilile in law. Th." pefition js accordingly allowed. No onler as t.o costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^lKfS^ 1 !^'l. ^-