W HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR single Bench: Hon’ble 3hr: Saush K. AgnuLmm, J. WRIT PETITION no. 1589 OF 2002 ;_§ Petitionexs :1. Badal Gupta aged about 27 years, S/o Late Radheshyam Gupta BalaJl PCO Dongaxgaon, Di ,,,’ Naresh Devangan, aged about 3 1 yeaxs, S/o Shn Jhagruram W s Rajnandgaon (C G ) D1smct-RaJnandgaon‘ ‘ 3. Vlkas Bakshl, aged abOut 31 yeaxs, S/o Shn Ashok Kumax Baksm Rajmahal Chowk Chhukhadan, D1stt RaJnandgaon ( ' A1111 Pal aged about 31 years, S/o Shn Shatmhan Pal, Tlknpam, ' v I Chhmkhadan, Dxstt. Rajnandgaon " (c G) ‘5 x Narayan Kamde, aged about 34 years, S/o Shn Dukh1ram Kamde, Tikn‘pam, Chhuikhadalnmisttw Rajnandgaon (C.G.). {y 6. Smt Uma Yadav aged about 34 E yeaxs, W/ o Shn Gyan Smgh Yadav T11G1paxa, Chhulkhadan, Dlstt - RaJnandgaon (C G ) ‘ 7. Mukesh Kumbhkar, aged about 29 yeaxs, S/ o Shri Kulpam, Tikripar, Cbhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 8. Chetan Anand Mahobia, aged about 28 yeaxs, S/o Shri Bholaxam, Sanja 1 ‘ ‘ C _ . I ‘ a y Gandhi Marg, Chhuikhadan, Distt.— Rajnandgaon (C. G.). Ku. Rachna Shrivastava, aged about 32 years, D/o Shri Rajcndra Lal, Near Post O$ce, Chhnikhadan, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Ku. Ritu Shrivastava, aged about 31 10. years, D/o Shri Rajendra Pal, Near Post O$ce, Chhm‘khadan‘! Distt.- “ix Ku. Pratima Choubey, aged about yeals, D/o Shri Naval Kishor, Near Power House, Chhuikhadan, Distt.~ Rajnandgaon (C. G.). Smt. Khumheed Khan, aged'about 29 years, W/o Shri Qasitn Khan, Masjid Line, Pathan‘para, Chhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (CC). Ramdular Mandavi, age‘d about 36 yeam, S/o Shri Paltu Ram, Jamaat ‘ Para, Chhuikhadan, Distt- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Smt. Kamlesh Sonj, aged; about 36 14. years, W/o Shri Rajendra Sonj, Brahman Para, Wad No.‘ 7, Chhnikhadan, Distt-Rajhandgaon (C.G.). 15. Rajnandgaon (C. G.). 11. 12. 13. Ku. Padma Devi Wasnik, faged about 30 years, D/o Shri Jethamal, Masjid Line, Pathanpara, Chhnikha‘dan,‘ Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Ku. Neetu Nagarchi, aged" about 26 16. years, D/o Shri Dhanjram, Jamat Para, Wani No. 3, Chhuikhadan, Distt.— Rajnandgaon (C.G.). / Respondents Versus z 1. “HTH Municipal OEcer. WRIT PETITION No. 1618 OF 2002 Petitioner Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh; Thmugh the Secretaxy Department of Enwmnment and Town Plannmg, D K S Bhawan, Ralpur (C G ) Collector 1 District Rajnandgaon (d G) Nagar Panchayat Chhmkhadan Tahs11 Chhmkhadan, Dmmct Rajnandgaon thmugh Ohlef ‘ Ravmdra Chawda, agedx about 3 1 years, S/ o Shn Amar Smgh Chawda, ‘ Amli Para, Khajragarh; Pistt- " i Rajnandgaon. State of Chhntu‘sgarh, Through the Secretary, ‘ Department of Environment and Town Planning, D.K.S. Bhawan,, Raipur (C. G.). Collector District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Nagar Panchayat Chhujkhadan, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon through Chief Municipal OEccr. Kumari'Kiran Mall D/o Shri'I‘R. Mall, R/o Dauchaura, Khairagarh, Distt.-Rajnandgaon (C.G.). y t W & WRIT PETITION No. 1659 OF 2002 Peh'tioner : Ku. Kiran Mall, aged about 31 years, D/o T.R. Mall, R/o Near Forest Naka, Dau Chourha, Khajmgarh, Distt- Rajnandgao‘n (C. G.). Versus Respondents : 1. State of Chhath'sgarh, ‘ y Thxough the Secretaly 75E ‘ Envuonment 85 Town Development Deparunent D K S Bhawan, Rmpur w ‘ (. ., 2. ‘Nagar Panchayat Chhmkhadan, l through 1ts Chmf Mumc1pal omcer, Nagar Panchayat, Chhllikhéiian, ‘ Distt Rajnandgaon J “v Umakant Mahoblya ‘ 1 _ S/ o Balbhadra Mahob1ya, R/o Mahoblya Pm, Chhmkhadan, Dlstt - Rajnandgaon. ,wu Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitionerm Miss Sunita Jain, counsel for the petitioner. ‘ Shri Vinay Harit Senior Advocate with Shri $andeep Dubey, Deputy Govt Advocate for the respondents No 1 and 2 Shn Amlt Verma, counsel for the respondent No Present: ORAL ORDER ( 2nd January, 2006) Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petiuoners e 1n WP No 1589/2002 WP No 1618/2002 and WP. No. 1659/2002 Were appomted by Chlef Mumc1pal omcer, Nag Panchayat, Chhuikhadan by order dated 24.8.1998 as ‘Shiltsi m" ‘ / 3 ar h / Karmis Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-111. Since all the three petitions involved common question of law, hence, all the three petitions axe being disposed of by this common order. The petiu'onem were given the appointment ordexs and theyijoined’ the service on respective posts. The petibbners iconh'nued to work as Shiksha Karmis Gmde-I, Grade—ll; and Grade-III Iespectively. . The State Government, by its order dated 29.?.§002, While exercising its power Under section 331 of Chhatn‘sgarh Nagar Pah'ka Adhim'yam, 1961 passed in Case No.-,3i51/18/2002, quashed the resolunon No 1 passed by the Standmg Committee of the Nagar Panchayat Chhmkhadan m its proc’eedmgs dated _ 21 8 1998 and the Resolunon No 1 dated 8 9 1998 passed by . the Educahon Committee, whereby the penhoners were appointed as Shiksha Karmis Grade-I, Glade-H and :Grade-Ill. Iespectively . Shrr Jltendra Pah learned counsel appear-mg for the pehtloners 1n WP No 1589/2002 and WP No 1618/2002 and M155 Sumta Jain, learned counsel appearing for the peunoner 1n W P J , No 1659/ 2002 contend that the State Government cannot vary or reverse the order passed by the Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan for selecting and appointing the petrhoners on the posts of Shiksha Kamis without notice to the interested parties and without aifovding an opportunity of hearing in support of such orders. . Shn‘ Vinay Harit, Senior Advocate with Shri Snmesh Bajaj, Advocate appearing for the State Government, per contra, r}; fa l KT contended that the State Government is fnny empowered in revision to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the Nagar Panchayat. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case entire selech'on process has been quashed and as such it was noi't necessary to issue notice to the peu'tioners individually and’ toi‘anmd an' opportunity of hearing. The State Government hasihfissued notice ‘ to the concerned oEcers of Nagar Panchayat andihas examined all the connected records. .Shri Amit Vex-ma, learned counsel appearing for Nagar ‘ { , A Panchayat, Chhujkhadan fairly submits that Nag‘ar; Panchayat, Chhuikhadan has appointed the petitioners after due approval by the selection committee through selecu'on process, in accordance with law and the Nagar Panchayat has not conducted any enquiry or has not issued any show cause notice to the petitioners before passing the impugned termination order dated 2.8.2002. It was further contended that the Nagar Panchayat has acted and passed the impugned termination order on the direction of the State Government on the basis of its order dated 29.7.2002 passed in case No. 3151/ 18/2002. . I have heard learned counsel for the parties. . The State Government in exercise of its power of revision under Section 331 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalih'es Act, 1961 has passed the impugned order dated 29.7.2002. Prowso to Sub secn‘on 2 of Section 331 clearly provides that the Statev Government cannot vary or reverse any order passed by the Additional Collector, prescribed authority or any oEcer" < i appointed or authorised by the State Government under this Act without issuing show cause notice to the parties interested to the appeal and without ad‘ording an opportunity of hearing in a ‘support of such order. Secu'on 331 of the Act, 1961 reads s a under: — “Power of State Government of Revision;.—(1) The Stat Government may, for the purpose of sahsfyang itself as to the correctness, legahty or propriety of any order passed by a D1v1510na1 Commissmner, Collector, prescribed authority or any o$cer > appointed or authonsed by the State Government under this Act, call for the connected records and may m domg so direct that pendmg the exammauon of the record such order be held 1n abeyance (2) On examining the records the State Government may modify or reverse the order’of a Divisional Commissioner, Collector, prescribed authority or any other ofhcer appointed or authorised ‘by the State Government under thls Act as 1t deemed ht Prov1ded that no order shall be varied or reversed unless nouce has been given to the parhés interested to appeal and to be heard in support of such order.” 8. Learned counsel for the State Government fairly contended that no show’ cause notice was given to the peu‘u'oners Who are instant parn’es and no hearing was affording in support of the order passed by the Nagar Panchayat. 9. Reliance on learned counsel on decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. O. Chahadharl is not relevant to the facts of the present case because in the instant case the selection was not cancelled by the authorities who have 1(2002) 3 Supreme Court cases 146 e ' conducted the selection process and appointment orders have been pasd them o In the present case, the State Government r has passed the pugned order exemse of ena1 power under section 331 of Chhattisgarh Muas Act, 1961. The State Governt was required to gi how cause notice to the parties concerne anotding n poruty o hearing in support of the orer w was sub of the rev5 Ts peon deselves o be allowed on te sho ground that the show cause nice and opporty f he was not given to the petitioners, wich nor er he prosns of la On the questn of back wage h ers have not produced any eence to show that te eoners were not gfully employed elseh ve e, i th mmti d ls ld as mhd i View of the fact e impugned teraon orer he va for non-comphance of pc11e of natural ste, the eoners are entitled to 25°/o of back wages nom the date ofiterrmnanon. 10. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are allowed and the impugned termination order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Nagar Panchayat, Chhuikhadan pursuant to orde‘r dated 29.7.2002 passed by the State Government and order dated 29.9.2002 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. sal- Satish K. Agnihotri . Judge Bablu se f 1m m x 1ts Rv1s1o mc1pl111e nme Ye s d a optni f d hich ject matter 11on hi nn t h rt ot unit o aring h 1s madaty und t v110 w io s te ptitione v1d h puu ain were En othenms n ’ a v rmp 1u1c ptih