A v XN THE HIGH CDURT F JUDIC%TURE RT JQE§LPUR §géb lam-n nugg L1 A xgmm p PETITIHNER M‘P” Karmghari Qangr§5$ Erahcn Bilagpur Bévalapmant utharity, a Hagiaterpd §mciety undew REgiEtratman No«2§5é?. $ffi¢Q~Naar Hanuman %an&ir Gal Baaar, Bilgpur. thrmugh it‘g P?&§i ent Shri Eurggh Tiwari, Qfnn Latg Naga£war Praiad Tiwari, ag§$ abmut $5 year$q Dccu§a$imn~wwrking wmrm a$ Time kéeper in thE Devalmpmant Bilagpur Quthmrity, BilaapurtMP} £. Rajémdra §wa§thin S/mu Eaneah Praaad §wa5thiq agwd &baut $£ ya $ccu atinmwCl@rkf ratary N.P. Karkrhari umngrea$, Eranmh Eilgapur, Ei1&g uEAw Authmrity5 F‘}; 5 BEvalm§me f Eil&§pur \MP)» VERQUS ‘ehEENTS: 1» $tata mf MuP. thrmugh it’§ S§¢r§taryu Eeptt mf Houauhg Envirmhm§mt Vallahh Hhawa , Bhmpal E. Eilagpur BavQlmpmEnt authaVitvn thwaugh jta Chief Ekacutiv& Qffitér Vyapar Bihar3 Ring R0a g Bi1a$pur. ThQ Chiaf E3§tutivE BiXa$pur Devglapmgnt Quthmvity3 Vyapar Bih$Fi R1 g Raadg Eilagpur (MP)n \iv mmw‘.“ x < ? y y aa 3r?! V1mf Keager éukharity, Qursath; ‘ Bud 1r x aaad éwagt‘ni 5 EilIE‘E’PLH Ellaépué‘: DEéV-g. 10pm§ MP} n ‘c‘ / rxbmxf 3;; lwe¥xetary ‘ wyym‘m “L, L er 3' En A. ""£§ngFE‘E:$ F: )3 i 1 agpw N P ka’ urn guthnritya pejghdr& {ganr‘ah zgmj 0vcu¢atla“ ‘ ) arm.” h Fulai‘a? ueVa1a‘qumwi” mlawu" ”P3 " Mur1& Maaemag S/c Shri Jwala Erasa§¢ &ge& about $0 yQaxa R/a L0§handi Bilagpu§¢ Anil Gulhaxg s/a Latg shfi PV@bh@1a& ”ulha£@g ag@d ahgut 3G y@ax§ Rib N@a$ Rajara“ Maméixg Goméagara 3i1$$purc E Sa@tcgh Paad@g 5f§ §hzi RaKaEaa@@y Ag®§ abaut 36 y&@3$& RJa V3dh&aag&rg Bilag§ur¢ Agkok ag@& abn¢t Kum§z 28 Raj§ut'S/@ y@a§S R/a ghri Vikag Hagéam; N@g%;& a$1agpu$g Sa$gjiai RaQ S/© Latg‘3h$i LQAa Rag &ga& abQQt 3% y@&3g? Bila$pmrg R/© Ya&um@$&&% Raga§& 23¢ siyagam wirma&k&r §/@ $hri Eh§g§tfam m£gwalkaz ag$& abaut 28 yearsg Hg§©ax095 Chim§Ea§Qaf& B$1ga§urg 25§ Alak Paa&@y $/a L®tg Shx$ VgPcPaa&@y ag@& ab§ut 35 y®@§@ &/a $arkma§§ Bila§pura Pajzaj &@m&@ s/@ Shr1 @amg& ad@g ag@& &bout 38 yeagwR/ 24a b%ata aglim§m gag §m Ba @Ea Sxg Shri Kaghian§r F’ \1”: 1 $¢w §r& @g@@ @bauk 3% yaarg %/@$ %é BEEIQ M@a&ix La&h@paga9311&%guxa W* ‘28¢ D@v@ndra M@§hxam @/o &xi ma§®ya@ Meghram» @ggé aboui 39 ywaz@ R/a D$g Qmb@&k@r &agarg &$1gs§mL& 2§Q Braj &@h&m Uik® 5/6 Shri §itar@m age$ abw§& $E y@ax@@ R/b M®ga$p&$§ Amb$§ka§ Nagar Bil§$pura 3Q$ Nareadra Chi€gak&f qfc %h$L 8&ajEaag ¢h$traka£ @ggd ab@u% 23 vaaxg &#@ Ewggaa sa§kugd&a Bil§5§mx¢ 31 Ram@gh 3& m $X© aig $hri Ramlal Sghw ” ® 3 r The Cmmmiggim Bil§gpur filhrii-z i What“: Dave 1 upmem t Eilagpur“ nary RQVEnuw5 ivi§imn cum Eilaapur‘ authmrity, QERTIGRARI. DRDERXBRDERS HAND§HUS. DIRECTIDN/DIRECTIUNSg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W,P.No.3843 of 2000 M .P.Karmachari Congress and Others Versus State of, M.P. and Others. respondent No.3 came into existence 'soxre time in \\ IA!“ x (Ctd. . 2* / \ /// Be£ore: Hon'ble Justice Shri W.A.SHISHAK: CJ‘. ; Present Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5hr: Ranvir Singh, Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 4. Shri M.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3. 0 R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioners who are 48 in all, are .\ I challenging the order of termination issued by the f respondent No.3 on 10th May, 2000. It may be‘ stated that the petitioners were employed on daily wage basis. They were engaged from different dates beginning from 1989'ti11 about 1999. The services o5 the petitioners were terminated as it was decided by the Government that persons employed on daily wages who were appointed after 3lst December, 1988 would be terminated. Various employees of the State approached the state Administra- tive Tribunal taking grievance against the order of termination. So also, the employees of various local bodies nane 1y like Developmnt Authority also approached Madhya Pradesh High Court in respect of the same order / of termination. At this stage. it may be stated that / 1982-83 under the provisions of, M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nive sh winiyam , 1973 . 3. It is contended that after Developmnt Authority came into existence at Bilaspur, activities of the authority increased. Indeed need to employ more persons arose . According 1y , the Deve lopme nt Authority re que sted V \ \1. 1 the Gov'ernnent for sanction of posts of contingent and work charge employees to be employed by the Developmnt Authority. It may also be stated that, in the matter of employment by the Developmnt Authority sanction of posts is necessarily to be accorded by thekstate Govern— ment. A request for sanction o£ posts was made on 29.4.1988. It appears that the request was £or 112 posts. It may be stated that the State Government sanctioned 51 posts. Thereaiter, a turther request was again made for 61 posts stating that the Deve lopment Authority needed more persons to be employed. However, such sanction Was not made. As regards the further request for sanction of posts by AnnexureSP—3 and P-4 no response came W from the State Governmnt. 4 . It is contended by Shri Manindra Shrivastava that there is no financial burden as such for the employmnt to be given to the writ petitioners and others by the Deve lopment Authority inasmuch as the said Authority generates sufficient financial resources of it’s own. 5. As stated above, on 27.11.1999 the state Govern— who" ment issued a notification that personslwere appointed after 3lst December, 1988 be terminated. In compliance with the aforesaid termination notification, the Deve lopnent Authority issued another order dated who 18.1.2000. All those personslwere engaged on daily wage basis were terminated except those engaged in sanitary work and also those whose posts had been sanctioned and against which they had been allowed to continue . (ctd..3.) / /_ V V, 6. Sane writ petitions were filed by the aggrieved terminated employees before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. These petitioners had also filed W.P.No. 511/2000 and ‘the same was disposed of on 11.3.2000 in the light of the earlier writ petition No.842/2000 which has been disposed of by the same High Oourt on 9.3.2000. In order to appreciate the clear directions issued in the present case referred to as W.P.No.842/2000 which was disposed of on 9.3.2000, a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure P-16. Para 6 offhe‘ said order state s t: “During the course of hearing, yet another D.0. letter dated 8.3.2000 of the Principal Secretary, Government o£ M.P., Urban Administration and Deve lopment Department, was produced by which it has further been clarified that cases shall be scrutinised in accordance with the orders dated 14.2.2000 and 26.2.2000 keeping in mind the need of the local bodies and the basic anenities required to be provided to the Public but subject to the ceiling of 65% on establish— ment charges and upto 75% in the case of Saphai Kamgars in Municipalities, Municipal Corpora- tions and Nagar Panchayat. It has also been directed that these bodies shall accordingly forward proposals for creation of posts which shall be duly considered by the Government". 70 I may reiterate at this stage that requests for creation of posts/sanction of posts had been duly made by the Deve lopment Authority of Bilaspur to the state Governmnt. After all aspects of the matter were considered, the High Court of M.P. disposed of the matter with certain directions in para 9 of the said order which is as follows:- (ctd.'..4..) "In the light of the above willingness indicated by the petitioners to the course suggested by the state Governmnt for consideration of individual employees, these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the Competent Authority or the Committee constituted in this behalf shall: (1) consiaer the case of each petitioner entitled to such consideration in accordance with the order dated 14.2.2000‘a'nd dateé 26.27. 2000 as explained vide D30. dated 8.3.2000 on the criteria contained therein ' for such scrutiny: (2) take into consideration the repree sentations received in this behalf from these employees or the ir representatives and the other material placed by them during such scrutiny before taking the decision; (3) grant relaxation in age, if necessary, to the extent of the service rendered by the employee while’considering the age—bar; (4) give due weightage to the inter—5e seniority as per length of service, other things being equal: (S) make proposals for creation of‘posts as per the directives contained in the above orders of the Governmnt subject to the limitations prescribed therein; and (6) communicate the decision to each such employee . y It is further contended that when the matter was 8. placed before the Competent Authority a copy of this direction was not available for consideration. This fact is reflected in para 5.16 of this writ petition that though a cepy of order passed in W.P.No.51l/2000 dated 14.3.2000 was available and also the order passed in W.P .No. 147 8/2009) @nfortunate 1y, the order passed in W.P.No.842/2000 was not attached to the representa— tion filed before the Deve lopnent Authority. It is therefore contended that before any consideration was made , ,the Bilaspur Deve lopnent Authority ought to have ggt‘ained a copy of the order passed in W‘.P.No.842/2000. According to the petitioners, Egg/g‘? Chief Executive Officer gave assurance to the petitioners that on receipt of the aforesaid order due consideration shall be made and that the petitioners would also be given due notice. This however, did not take place. 9. It is contended by Qmi Manindra Shrivastava that the Competent Authority did not comply with the directions issued by the High Court in the present case inasmuch as the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard. 10. As regards the need of the services of the writ petitioners or for that matter services of more employees required by the Deve lopnent Authority, Sluri'Manindra Shrivastava has drawn my attention that although initially there were only three projects to be handled by the Bilaspur Deve lopment Authority, as of now there are as many as 23 projects which are mentioned in para 5.11 of the writ petition. It is therefore submitted that in View of tremendous incre ase in the works to be undertaken by the Bi laspur Deve lopme nt Authority , the need to employ more persons was highlighted and request was accordingly made to the State Governnent for sanction/ creation of posts. 11. Shri M.D.Sharma, learned Advocate appears for respondents @J and 3. I may state that Shri.M.D. Sharma and Shri Ranvir Singh, 1e arned Government Advocate who appears for respondents @J and 4 have similar submissions as far as the relevant rules applicable to the pre sent case are concerned , concerning employme nt in the Bilaspur Deve lopment Authority. On careful perusal of Section 67 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 as well as Rules 4, 5 and 6(1) of the M.P.Special Area Authority (Chairman & Officers & Servants Recruitment and condition of Service) Rules 1976, I am of the View that applicationgof such rules or provisions of law are not directly an issue in the pre sent case . (Cohtd. 6 .) —: 6 :- l w 12. Shri M.D.Sharma submits that infact respondents aw. 2 and 3 have complied with the direction issued by the M.P. High Court inasmuch as due consideration has been made. Furthezj, it is submitted that as Governmnt issued the notification by which persons employed on daily wage: basis engaged after 31st December, 1988 were to be a terminated, the same was done by the Bilaspur Deve lopment x, Authority in compliance with the Governmnt's order. According to Shri M.D.Sharma, there is no necessity of giving the persons a personal hearing inasmqch as they one month were givenénotice before the order of termination became made and also because of fact that no representation was made 9W. > .5 y K s“ 13. As against this submission Shri Manindra shrivastava submits that infect the orders passdd by the High Court were also placed before the Competent Authority. Shri Manindra Shrivastava submits that there is no denial from the Bilaspur Deve lopmnt Authority that at the time of consideration copy of the order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.842/2000 passed on 9.3.2000 was not available. According to Shri Manindra Shrivastava no effective consideration could have been possible inasmuch M as clear directions were given in the said Court/gassed W a in w.P.No.842/2ooo. 14. hpon careful perusal of the impugned order of termination issued by the respondents %.2 and 3 it seems clear that order of termination was issued on the ground that there was no order of sanction issued by the state Government. However, there is no mention made that as of then there was no further need of services either of the petitioners or for that matter the services of any other persons. In may View, the requests for sanction made by the Bilaspur Deve lopment Authority makei it abundantly clear that except for want of sanction, the need of employing the writ petitioners and for that matter any other persons clearly existed then and MW 1w ww‘mm-u- perhaps more nowo Simply on technical ground that sanction was not accorded and therefore persOns who were otherwise employed because they were needed, could not have been dispensed with. In myiview, the need to employ is essential and not sanction for creation of posts which must cone in course of eime. of course, from the Competent State Authority. Assessment of the need of the employment is to be made and infect itwas made by the Bilaspur Deve lopment Authority. There is no change in this position and even otherwise, because of the fact that as of now, there are as many‘a's 23 § pro je cts under the Bi laspur Deve lopme nt Authority , it cannot be said that need to continue services could not exist. 15. There is no clear statement from the State m /¢ Government as to why sanction cannot be accorded. In my View, once the basis requiring employing more persons has been made available to the State Governmnt, there would be’no valid reason for the State Government to ‘re£use to accord sanction. I am also further of the View that Bilaspur Deve lopnent Authority is in a position to generate its own resources to maintain its A employees. Hence, once Bilaspur Developmnt Authority has made the reque st for sanction, I would consider that the State Government is under obligation to grant H necessary sanction. Since reque st has not been with- drawn, the state Government should verify and consider the re que st of the Bilaspur Deve lopme nt Authority . The said request should now be considered by the successor State of Chhattisgarh. 16., In the result and in the premises aforesaid, Xv this petition is allowed. The impugned orders of Lg J termination dated 10.5°2000 issued by the Bilaspur #f/J’a Deve lopnent Authority are set aside / Sdl— a crnef Mme . 15.10.2001. ss/—