INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURB ATBILASPUR CHHAmSGARH wmT ragmoN No. s && -^72006 ~r^~~"—— - rasnncwER J: ;v ,i.v Anil Kumar Manekar, S/0 Shri Hansraj Manekar, aged about 37 years, R/0. Rajiv Nagar, Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Stateof Chhattisgarh ' . Through : Secretary, /•' .*'' ^^ !^ ^^!^^anc!naya ,^%^^D.K.S.Bt ^/".••^^ ...-"' Distt. Rai ..•"..^•\^!Q-' Panchayat Department, Bhawan, Raipur t. Ralpur (C.G.) 2. Director, Panehayat SESocial Welfare Directorate, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector,Rajnandgaon, CoUectorate, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Churiya, Ghuriya, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Churiya, Through : President, Janpad Panchayat, Churiya, Distt. : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRITPETITION OTIDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE eONS'nTUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 3807 of2006 Petitioner Aiul Kumar Manekar Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & others Sin^le Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. A@iihotri. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Arviad Dubey, Pasel lawyer for the State/respondents No.l, 2 and 3. 2. ORAL ORDER (28th July, 2006) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed on 17.9.1998 (Annexure P-2) as Daily Wager, at the rate fixed by the CoUector. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized by order dated l.10.2004 (Annexure P-6) and was granted pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950- 80-4590. The petitioner has referred to a letter dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure P-7) issued by the CoUector, to Chief Execufive Officer, Janpad Pauchayat, Chiiriya, statuig that the appom.tinent of the petitioner was not iu accordaace with law and as such, his services be terminated with imiuediate effect and the amoiint paid to him should be recovered. Shri G.K. Bcriwal, leamed counsel appearing for tfae respondents No.l, 2 and 3, subinits that the petitioner is stiU coiituiiiuig on the post ou the strength of resolution of order passed by flie Jaapad Pauchayat. It is adinitted case ofboth the pardes fhat the services of fhe petitioner cauaot be terminated and recoveiy of amoiuit caituot be inade, wifhout foUowing proper procediu-e of law. It is accordingly directed fhat the order dated 10.7.2006 (Annexiire P-7) shall not be given eflFect to, unless and uatil the provisions of law foUowuig principles of natural justice aiid fair play in action, are compUed with. For the reasons stated above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. i —-' - Satish K. Agnihotri Judge O.c"'*''