^S^^^^^^ £N 'THE HIC2i <3D U&T OP M^SHYA PRADESH AT JAB^LPm."^? ~^y .. ^'^ felisc'. Petition ISiO.)<^C^L of 1990. / . ; ^s^i.^:^ ('^-^ PSlITIQBERSs- 1. Raroswaroop Yadav, aged 40 years, *% ^ -; ^.^^^^S^^^^^^.^M^i^.^^W^d--^^ fRteti f'Q Sa. ^\ .-MU7- '^®1 -^.^^^^^.^ § hy &.^^.,Ai.^{^^^,^^te4&^ f^oV^ ^-0€-^&.. i ^ 't B. >^-.-7-<?)^ ^- hi' ^ .^' M' Bon of Shxi Roineshwarlal Yadav, Peon^ MuM cLpol Coan.cil^ Khairagarh^ District RajnQzidgaoB, re^ideaf: of Tar]saraipara^ Kh^ragarh, Disfricf ilajnsadgaoH. 2. SureshE:uEn^r^ aged 20 years, SOB of Shri (3iondasingh^ Peon, MUJUsc&pal Cbuxid.1, Khair^arh^ residenfc of Ganj- para, Kh^iragarh^ Distxl cfc Raj^^idgaon. 3. MeelkaBfh Gfaarde^ aged 20 years, son / 6f £>hri RaTOShonker (Siarde, Peon, ^. MuM cigal CbfiiRdLl^ Khalragar^-res±-den+- of Maya Dhaba^ ^hairagarh^ Qis-hri ct Rajnandgoon, (M^P^) < V22SSUS. R^PONDSII^TSs- 1< Mu^idtpal Co^i;d. l^ KMairagarh, Dis^xic-t Rajnaiidgaon throagh the Cteief Munidpal ^ Officer. 2. ^tate of Madhya gradesh through fhe Secre-fcary to the Governmeat: of Madhya Prodesh ia fhe Local Self-Qovera^ent Departiiiexit, Bhopai* ^^^^ ^ 3. Direcfcor of urban Adminis-fcra-fcion^ Mddhya P radesh^ Bhopai^ ^4- Depaty Mrector of Urbaa MmiiiistratiGn^ Relpur<» P£TI'!SGH ®ND2RARTl CLBB 226& 227 OP THB ODreTITQTIOM OF I^DI-a. The petitioners aboveiiQmed beg tosuteiit QS ander^- ; •2 ^ ' .• XI-HC-22 3^ t<1NI<rt^, ^Tfi^^Ko, ^dK-ty q?l^» NTOrrrsiwra^ 3T1^T ..U:E^.-.BA^ f^s 200 •3:n^?r^ {^ri^3TI?9T ^•<4l^ ^(^a ^T^T ?:CTRPC ^rf?^ ctiNi<n<fl<r1 ^H^lT ^ f^t <Rl<^K ^3'Tf^R'^n^T iforthepetitioners. 15/09/2005 Shri R.M.Sholapurkar, c< Shri Arun Kochar.counsel fo^ the respondent NG.I . ShriPantaj Shrivastava, Panjet Lawyerfor the State/respcwidents No. 2,3 and 4. Leamed counsel for the appointed on 16/03/90 (Anne? Municipal CouncH. Khairagarh. Govemment vide order dated 31j issue the appointment orders in cas cancet the appointment orders in ler submte (hat the petttioners were ures P-4, P-5 & P<6) in cv DistriGt Rajnandgaon. The State (Annwure P-15) directed not to 1 where it had not been issued and to where it had been issued. The petitioners fited this petitton immedijjitely on 09/07/90 chaltenging the order dated 31/05/90 passed by the State) Govemment. TNs Court after hearing both the partles granted slay of the|order dated 31/05/90 to the effect that if the petitioners services had not fcjeen terminated, they shalt be aUcwwd to continue until furthw ordere. Th|e petitionera ever sinc»continued as Peons in the services ofthe respon^ facts. He submite ttiat the r^t lentNo.1. Learned counsel for the re^pondent No.1 does not dfepute the it No.1 in his reply had stated that the petition was premafaire because no| order was passed by the respondent No.1. When the petittonere had aphiittedty ^ialtenged the wder dat^l 31/05/90wherein the Deputy DireG|ior, Urban Administration, Raipur had directed the respondent No.1, Muni|clpal Gouncfl, Khairagarh to cancel all the appointonents and as suchther^ had been a chaltenge ofthe specific order, ttien how ttus petition is prerfiature. ^tmittedly, tiie appoinbnent of (^^f^r) XI-HC-22 3^ -^I^M^, ^Tfl^KS, Rcrll^y OT^T <-(5R» @) WW?IT8vRTc|i ^..^..(?.^...l?.^ f^RE^S 200 -31T^T^T f^rN? 37^57 $r^I<=ft^f?cT ,-. <? 1 -> ^ r^ a^ ^T^T^RrRR^rfN -z- <^j^Tcrt<flri ^i^(nT^:tel:cft'<Ri<<r<y< ^3Tf^T3?^ST the petitioners were ordered to be| cancelled by the State Govemment. This argument is not sustainabte fnd as such is rejeeted. There is no other submission on merit byttie re^pondent No.1. Leamed counset for the respt>n<lent Nos. 2,3 & 4 have not filed any separate reply but adopted flie retuijn filed by ttie respondent No.1. In view of the facts when th|e respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have not fited any return justMying the irfipugned order dated 31/05/90 and confrtwerting the submissions of|the counsel for the peMBoners, the submissions made by teamed counjsel for flie r^pondent N@. 2,3 & 4 are rejectect, in absence of any retum| on their beha . The petiUoners were a|^>omted after due selection procejss byKw respondent No.1. The stend taken up t>y the State Governmefl|t that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 was valid, is rej For the reasons stated abo^ Peons pureuant to the interim ord< e, the orclerdated 31/05/90 is iUegal and invalid. Even otherwisethe petponers arecontinujng intheseivice as r dated 30/08/90 passed by the Migh Court of Madhya Pradesh. At this s^age after 15 years, tt is neittier just nor proper to dismiss the services of ) ie petittoners on the strength of the impugned order dated 31/05^0. Accordingly, Uie impugned ^rderdated 31/t^^O is quastocl. The petitton is allowed wlth cost quantifi^d to be Rs. 5.000/-. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge (^^fe^)