7") ^tW»-lS5y vw flrisftq ^rgrftffft atiff'i w yognmft? afiwCT, ^stfte - rrtgr j fvy ggm ^r'f^ flce tft rai em 3p tPTlW 30 B^ TC «rg<rfhTRw Twasrvn i srgfo nra^g q|? f^wraq, ^t, i. ns <SQ vffs^ sr?r vy crai m yo vns^ , qmfl »sq ^r^ a»l?m 2, H'qTW , vy W^mr ^rt, w yo ril'Tm Iwg'o^ X 3TO9TW, vy f^mT^wt. f'lw ftsrrag;!" iq@9"oj 4. gg<Ri iRr^i, q-g Wtemr ^r^ ftHRlST Han^I t^tlTS^r ^l-Vit ^'l^s AS ^X^3^ Q:l f^r "teTs^r lvffQ\ airtss —- ^o-i ^ 5 a^ »qrl»s¥w ar^-t w as:a'fe cn'rr 19 gwsfiw Mftff?B»sWn'w i985 . sf^ ftiiqffifttt ^^snrr ^sn ®?crr§:- qe f^. ar^ ?4 aqrt^w^ qriiTOr.q^girr'NfTrssrr fteiBBIJII HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE^ENCIL: HON'BLESiHRISAnSHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. Wmj PETITION (S.) N0.3264 OF 2005 Vishnu Prasad Daliire versus Res&ondents State ofMadhva Pradesh and others Present : Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panei Lawyer for the respondente/State. aift;r!:atSil^fc«/' ORAL ORDER >di (Passed on28M ofJuly, 2006) The petitioner was appointed as part-time Peon at Collector's rate by order dated 30-5-1992 (Annexure A-2). The appointmeat of the petitioner was in accordance with law, as the name of the petitioner along with other candidates were requisitioned from Employment Exchange and the petitioner along with other similarly situated candidates had gone through the process of selection. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No.15 ofthe Selection-List dated 30-5-1992. The petitioner, after havinj completed 5 years of sei-v'ice, was granted regular pay-scale of Rs.2550- 3200 by order dated 12-5-1999 (Annexure. A-7) in accordance with the seniorin' list of Peon&'Paricharaks etc. as on 30-5-1992. The petitioner was 2-- posted as Paricharak till farther orders. Subsequently, by impugned order dated 9-2-2000 (Annexure A-9), the regular pay-scale granted to the petitioner was withdrawn declaring the grant ofregular pay-scale as illegal. 2. Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the appointment ofthe petitioner was in accordance with the provisions of M.P./C.G. Work Charged and Contingeacy Paid Employees (Recmitment and Conditions ofService) Rules, 1975 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1975'), Leamed counsel further submits that the posts of Chowkidar and Paricharak are Class IV posts under the provisions of tlie Rules, 1975. A Peon can be posted as Paricharak and a Paricharak can be posted as Peon at the discretion ofthe Govemment. It is next contended that withdravval of the grant of regular pay-scale to the petitioner, who was appointed in accordance with law, meets with civil consequences and it prejudices case of the petitioner if the order is passed without followins principles ofaudi alterem partem, i.e., naturaljustice and fair play in action. 3. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, learaed Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State, does not dispute the facts and lega! submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and havinj perused records, it is evident that the impugned order dated 9-2-2000, withdrawing the grant of regular pay-scale to the petitioner, was passed without following principles of natuial justice and fair play in action. The [^^^^s^ -3- ^). petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of placing his case before the authorities prior to passing of the impugned order. Thus, the order is vitiated. The order is prejudicial and punitive in nature. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to grant of regular pay- scale from 12-5-1999. 6. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per mles. Sd/- SatishK.Agnl Judge ibotn IttSillMBtEl