\y JW THE STATE ADMIHISTRATIVE TRIBUIiAI. OP MADHYA PRADESH, RAIPUR M.P. ^ O.A.No. ............. of 1998 APSLICANT MABENDRA KUMAS YADAV Son of Shrl Lakhan Lal Yadav, age 42 years, resident of KiJapara, Wear Sheetla Mandlr, Doagargaon^ District Rajnandgaon M.P. Khalasi in the. office ,of the Block Development Officer^ D011gargaon^ Di strict Rajnandgeton M.P. VERSUS RESPONDElfTS 1. STATE OF HADHYA PRADESB Through the Secretary to the Jieven'ue Department Bhopal. '.-^ 2. THE COMMISSIOliER, RAIPUB DIVISION. Ralpur •M.P. 3. THE COLLECTOR. (Development) Sectlon) Rajnandgaon, flistr.ict Sajnandgaon M.P. 4. THE SUPERINTENDI11G EtlGINEES. Rural Engineering Service Ralpur Circt.e, Ralpur, Dlstrlct Raipur M.P. , ' 5, THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Dongergaon, Distrlct Rajnand- gaoa M.P. DETAILS OF APPLICATIOH (1} PASTICULARS OF APPI.ICANT: i. Name of appllcaot : Mabendra Kumar Yadav 22. Wameof Father : Lakhanlal Yadav • Contd...2 luiUMIILIIKI HIGHCOURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2510 of 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Yadav State of Madhya Pradesh and others Shri Deepak Jain counsel for the petitioner. Shri ChandreshShrivastava PL for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.09.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure A-4) passed by respondent No.5 (Block Development Officer) cancelling the regularization order ofthe petitioner dated 23.8.1988. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 31.8.1977 the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi on daily wages vide (AnnexureA-1). Subsequently, on 23.8.1988he was given regular payscaleof 380-5-425-10-490 as per the recommendations of Choudhary Pay Commission, with effectfrom 1.9.1982. Petitioner'sfurther case is that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned dated 17.3.1998 has been passed cancelling the order dated23.8.1988 and the petitioner has again been made a daily wage employee. ^. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after considering all the aspects of the case and the vacancies available in the department, the petitioner was made regular vide order dated 23.8.1988 bythecompetent authority and therefore under no cissumstances the order impugned could have been passed ce his regularization order and then again making him a daily wage employee. He submits that the order impugned dated 17.3.1998 has been passed after almost 10 years of regularizing the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice andif the said order is allowed to stand, itwould cause a great hardship to the petitioher. In support ofhis submissionhe placed reliance on the decision of '•& ^ ^•s3a;s». ^•i'^;M£^ ^:^^^7^"??rt'^^?s£L^i£'^—^J? ^: this Court in the matter of Ram Dulare Prajapati and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P.S. No. 1861/2005). 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondents submits that there was no sanctioned post in theyear 1988 and therefore the question of regularizing the petitionerdoes not arise. According to him, ifanymistake has been committed by the respondents, they have every right to correct the same. He however, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the order impugned came to be passed. 5. Having heard counsel forthe parties and perused the documents available on record including the judgment of this Court referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that theorder impugned dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure A-4) being punitive in nature is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner enabling him to put forward his case. This apart, the order impugned which has been passed ten long years after his regularization, if allowed to stand.shall cause a great hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order under challenge being unsustainable in the eye of law is liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby quashed. Noorder as to cost. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar °" Judge ^:--