-.--^-' .- ^ IN THE HIQH COURT OF MADHYfi PRADESH JfiBALPUR U.P.ND. l "^ 1995 PETITIONER f"^ SMT. SHflSHI U/0 Shri K.K.Shukla, aged 30 years, Lower Division clerk, Raipur Dist.l. Fish F'arroer'ii Development Agency, Raipur, residenl of Sanjay Nagar, TikrapTara, Raipur Tahsil and Distl. Raipur (M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. RAIPUR DISTT. FISH FftRMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Raipur through its Chairman/Colleclor, Raipur Regd. Office - Colleclorate, Raipur. B. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER- CUM-SECRETARY, Raipur Dist.t.. Fish Farmer's Developmenl figency, Raipur, Collectorate, Raipur. 3. THE DIRECTOR. -OF FISHERIEEi (Matsodhyog) Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRfiDESH Ihrough Secretary, Krishi Pashu Chlkitta) Vibhag Bhopal. PETITION UNDER ART 2E6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE URIT, QR ORDER QR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF URIT ETC . .t.l--^"-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petitipn No. 756 of 1995 Petitioner : Snat. Shashi Shukla Versus Respondents : Raipur District, t?ish Faniier's Development Agency otliers Sin^e Beach; Hon'bk Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri. Shri S. P. Shanna, Advocate for fhe Petitioner. None for tbe respondeTits No. 1 and 2. Shri V. V. S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri I. N. Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for tlie respondents No. 3 and 4. iSIS.S ORDER ( 22ndAugust, 1. Tbe petitioner was initiaUy appoiated as Hindi Stenographer on dafly wages on l.5.1985 onwi-irds. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed on the post of L.D.C. (Ixswer Diyision Clerk) on the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420, temporarily, vide orier dated 13.11.1987 (Annexure P/7). The services of the petitioner was terminated. vide order dated 2B.2.1995 (Annexure P/10) w.e.f. 1.4.1995, as no loner required. 2- This Court after hearing leamed counsel for both the parties granted stay of fhe operation of fhe inipugned order dated 28.2.1995 (Annexure P/10) vide order dated 27.3.1995. The petitioner has been contmiung thercafter on the saine post. 3. - Shri S. P. Shamia, leanied counsel appearing for tlie petitioner submits that the irupugned order dated 28.2.1995 visits with civil consequences and since the same was passed without foUowing the principles of natliral jiistice and without afforiing any opportunity of hearing.to ftie petitioner, the onder deserves to be quashed on tbe simple'ground that the order is vitiated on account of non-coinpliance ^. ia?iN 4. of the piiiiciples of natiiral justice and fair play in action. It is fiirtlier contended tfaat undcr the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Goveminent. Servants (Teinporary & Qiiasi-Pemianent Service) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules; 1960'), which has been adapted by tlie State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner had acqiiired the quasi pei-maneat status in service under Riile 3 A on having coinpleted Gve years temporaTy sei-vice on the post of L-.D.C. The service of the pRtitioner couM not liave been terminated on any other. ground, except, by strictly following the principles of natural justice and fair play in action, Despite sevei-Rl notices to tbe respondents No. l and 2 i.e. Raipur District Pish Panner^s Developineot Agency, .Raipur aad Chief Executive Officer, Raipur District Fish Farmers Agency, Raipiir, none appeai-ed on their hehalf However, the repty on their behalfwas filed on 12.5.1995. (n the reply the plea oftTie respondents No. 1 and 2 is tTiat theiiR should be a clear declaration of quasi penTian(;nt statiis imder Rnlc 3 and 3 A of thc Rules, 1960. It is adinitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that tbe said Rules aie applicable, as it is not the case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 tliat the said Rutes are not applicable to the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Moortby, leai-ned Dcpiity Advocate Genei'al, assisted by Shri I. N. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, appearuig for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that tbis case has to be contested by the tespondents No. l and 2 as the State i.e. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have no interest in thc case and there is no grievance of the petitioner against the respondents No. 3 and 4. On the qiiestion of appKcabflity of Riile 3 of the Rules 1960, Shri Moortliy iri bis ijsiial frankness and faimess subniits tbat in fhe present case wtiere the petitioner has coinpleted 5 years of teinporary ^ :^ ••nn s^ iS!K% service, no declaration is necessary iinder Ruie 3 A ofthe Rules 1960, Rule 3 ofthe Rilles, 1960 is quoted hereunder:- 3. A Gfivemment senicml shall he deemed. to he in quas;'- pennanenl seniice,- (i) tf fte has heen in teinporary service in the saine servioe or posl cxsntWMOusly for more than three years; aiid (ii) if ihe appointing authority being satisfied' as fo his suUability in respect of age, qiiaKfications, vmrk and diaracter for / ejnployrrwnt in a qizasi-penrument capadty, has issued a declaration to ihai effect, in acoordance with si/ch insinAfiions as the Govenior inay issuefrom timei lo time. [Explanalion-fn {V)mpiiting cxiniinuous temporary sejvics for the piirposes offhis njde andperiod afbreak in service during a vafxdion shaff fee counted as a period of actual senrice uihere, upon re-smployiTient itnmediafely after ihe vaaa.tion, fhe Govemmeni seniant has been allmved to Sraui his pay and. allowanoes in resped of suchperiod.] 3A. Government senwnt in respect of vihom. a dp.daralwn under clavse (ii) of nile 3 has noi been issued buf. has heen in femporafy seniice continuouslif for frie yeaw in a service or post in resped of which such declaration aould he inade sha.il be deemed to he in gi^asi-pennctnent servioe wdessfor reasons to be recorded in writing i.he appoiniing auihority othensise orders. 3AA. For the purpose of rufes 3 and 3A, in the case of an fa) whfere consuUalion with the Pufch'c Sen/i'ce Comrmssion is not required, a seniioe which a Govefrunenl seiva.nt has rendered prior to his temporclnj appointnwnt according to ihe provisions qf <he recnniment rules or any instructions issued by the Govemor from. tnne to iime, shaU noi he countedfor recJtoning IJie compteted three ye.ars orfive yeavs ofservice, as the case may he; fS)) wJisre csnsuttafion tvith thc Pitblic Servicp Corrwnission is rp.ytired, a serviw vfhidz a. Governinsnt seivant has rendered prior to his selection by tlv Piihlic Seniice Comm.ission shall noi he counted far recKoning fhe completed three years orfive years ofsenrice, as the ixise fnau be. --?• •f- s'sWSS 10. %akur Having heard leamed connsel for the pai-ties and having perused the records appended to the petition and rcply, it is evident tliat the UTipiignert order was passed withoilt follomng the principtes of natiiral jiistice and fair play in action. It is well settled principle oflaw that any order, which visits with civil consequences and prejudice the case of a goveniment einployee, cannot be passed without aflbrdiiig the opporhinily of hearing to the einployee concemed. In the pwsent case it is adinitted position fhat no opportunily of hearing was affoi'ded to the petitioner and as siich fhe impugned order dated 28.2.1995 (Annexure P/4) isvitiated. The Supreiue Coiirt in cateaa of decisions i.e, H. li. Trehan aad othera Vs. Union of India & others { (1989) 1 SCC 764| and Bhagwaa Shutela Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1994 SC 2480) has clearly observed that the redTiction in rank, without show cause notice and without opportiinily of hearing amounts to flagrant violation of tbe prmciples of nahiial justice. The Siiprenie Court in the case ofGajanaa L. Peraefear Vs. State ofCoa aad another { (1999) 8 SCC 378} hfld that the benefit could not have been taken away wifhout aflbrding an opportunity ofhearing. By virhie of fhe stay order dated 27.3.1995 passed by this Court, the petitioner has bcen continuing on the post of L.D.C. and further the ordcr of tennination was passed without following the principtes of natiiral jiisticc. Por tbe reasons steted above fhe iinpugned order dated 28.2.1995 (Annexiire P/ 10) is quashed. The petition is acconlingty allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a Ifc- V ^•r- ''<. -/