IN _JH^_HIGH COURT OF MftDHYPl PRftDESH AT JABfiLPUR n^7 W. P.NO.-------/-OF 19'T>5 iiESPONDENTS IETITIONER DRQNA KUMAR SAHU S/0 Jiuarakhan La 1 Sahu , a<jed ^\^ • years, Chaukldar, Raipur Districl Fishi Faniiers Developirienl Agency, Raipur resiLlenl of Bholanagdr, Raipur Tahsil and Dislt. Ra i pu r . VERSUS 1. RAIPUR DISTT. FISH FARMER'S DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RAIPUR IhrouQh ils Chairman and Colleclur, Haipur , H.O. Collectorale, Raipur. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RftIPUR DISTRICT FISH FARMERS AGENCY, RAIPUR H.D. Collectorale, Rai pu r . 3. THE DIREGTQR OF NftTSYODHOG, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal 4. THE GDVERNMENT 'OF MfiDHYft PRADESH through Secretary Krishi (Pashu Chikitsa) Vibhag, Bho pal . PETITION UNDER ART. S26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE DF AN APPROPRIfiTE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NftTURE OF URIT ETC. limiiwi rii-iiirffi irt HrGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIJR Wnt Petitipn _No, 757 of 1995 Petitioner : Drona Kiimar Sahu Versus Respondents : Raipur District, Pish Fannei-'s DevelopmRnt Agency others Siagle Bencfe; HoiAle Mr, Justice Satisl* K. Agftibottl. Slui S. P. Sharuia, Advocate for the Petitioxier. None for the iTespondents Nq. l aiid 2. ^Sbri V. V. S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Geneial with Shri I. N. SSirivasteva, Panel lawyer for fhe I'espondents No. 3 and 4. ORAL ORDER ( 22ndAugust, 2006) Tbe petitioner was initialfy appomted as Contingency Pmd Eiaployee on daity wages fbr 89 days vide order dated 10.11.1990 (Annexure P/4). ThereaflEr his services was Tiegularized vide onder dated 5.3.1994 (AnDexiire' P/8). The petitioner fontinued on the reguJar post t3! 28th Februaiy, 1995, when his services was tenninated vide order dated 28.3.1995 (Annexure P/9), as no tonger required. Tbis Court after hcaring leamed connsel for both the parties granted stay of the operation of fbe iinpugned order dated 28.2.1995 (AoTiexiire P/9) vide order dated 27.3.1995. The petitioner has been continuing tlieiieafter on the sanie post. Shri S. P. Shamia, leamed counsd appearing for the petitioner subtnits that the impugned orier dated 28.2.1995 visits with civil consequences and since the same was passed witbout following the pnnciples of natiiral jiistice and wittioiit afForiing any opportlinity of '•^ R. 6. 7, hearing to the petitioner, the order deserves to be quashed on tlie simple groiind that. the order is vitiated on account of non-compliance ofthe principles ofnatnreil justice and fair play m action. The serwices of the petitioncr cou1d have been termiiiated on any other ground, except, strictly following the principtes of natiirEil justice and fair play in action. Despite several notices to tbe respondents No. 1 to 2 i.e. Raipur District Fish Famier^s Developnient Agency, Raipur and CUef Executive Officer, Raipiir District Fish Panners Agency, Raipur, none appeaned on fheir behalf. However, the repty was ffled on 12.S. 1995 on behalfofflie respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri V, V. S. Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Shri I. N. Shrivastava, Panel I^awyer, appearing for tlie respondents No. 3 and 4 siibniits that this case has to be contested by the respondents No. 1 and 2 as the State i.e. RespondeTits No. 3 and 4 have no interest in tbe case and tbere is no grievance ofthe petitioner against the Tcspondents No. 3 and 4. Having heai-d learned couias'el for the psrties and having pcniscd the recoiTls appended to the petition and l~epty, it is evident that the impiigoed oreler was passed withoiit followuig the principles of natiiral justice and fair p1ay in action. It is weU settled principle oflaw that any order which visits with tlie civi1 consequences and prejudice the case of a govemment eniployce cannot be passed without afTording the opportnnily ofhearing to the employee concerDed. In the pn-sent case it is admitted posifion ttiat no oppoitunity ofhearing was afforded to tbe petitioner and as such the unpugned order dated 28.2.1995 (Annexiire P/9J isvitiated. By virtue ofthe Stay order dated 27.3.1995 granted by Qus Court, tlie petjtiorier has been continumg in service and the iinpugned order has been passed without afforduig an opportunily of hearing to the petitioner. For fhe reasons stated above tbe impugiied orier dated 28.2.1995 (Annexure P/ 12) is qiiashefl. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Tliakur Judge "T F3r