K^~^ ^- ^ T^Z^— IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITIONfS) N0.1 ?,Q>6 /2010. PETITIONER: Smt.Savitri Gosai, wife ofArjun Gosai, aged about 61 years, retired A,N,M. Office of Community Health Center Bakawand, Bastar, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondents .0 / .0 ^ ^o^y -^y ^y' ..^- s>-" ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^ 2. Director, Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bastar, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 7.^0 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 62*^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1836 of2010 Smt. Savitri Gosai RESPONDENTS VER8US State ofChliattisgsarh& others WRIT PETITION LTNDER xi\R'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Sliri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi-i V.V.S Moorthy, Dy Advocate General & Shri Shashaiik Thalair, Panel Lawyer for the State. Om)ER(QRAL) (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.07.2009 (Aiinexure P/l) whereby the absence ofthe petitioner for a period from 08.08.1997 to 26.06.1999 (688 days), 02.03.2001 to 27.04.2004 (1153 days) and 06.08.2006 to 15.12.2008 (862 days) without affording an opportmiity ofhearmg was treated as dies-non. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioiier submits that the petitioiier had to remain absent on account of faiiiily problems. accordingly, he remained absent for the aforesaid period. 3. On the other hand, leamed Panel La^yer appearmg for the State/respondents submits that the authorities, exercising their power under the provisions of section 18 ofthe Fundamental Rules, where m there is no prescription for affording opportimity ofhearing, coiisidercd the case ofthe petitiosier and declared the period ofabsence as dies non, This would not be a break in sen7ice howeven it would certamly affect the gi'ant ofiiicrement aiid other pensionary benefits. 4. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, tliere may not be any prescriptioii for affordiiig opportuiiity of heariiig or followmg the prmciples ofnaturaljustice m the statiitoiy provisions, But the principle ~~:; ^ff^^^ .^.fi""'^ S '^SSl". "^^ ''^. ^"^..^-.^ '"j;^,.'""''""'" ^ 5. Ajiin 2 C ^^ ofnatural justice is iiilierent in all the provisions wherein an order is passed without hearing, and results into civil (evi!) consequences. Since the petitioner would not be entitled to increment and for fature sen7ice career, and his pensionary beneflts is also to be affecte<i by dies non.^he petitioner is entitled to opportunity of heai'mg before the impugiied order was passed. In view ofthat, the order dated 23.07.2009 (.^imexiire P/l) is quashed. However, the aythorities may reconsider the case ofthe petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order for declamig dies non, leave witliout pay or grant of casual, leave iti accordance with law., ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agniliom Judge