$53 Q3“? L‘Zaeg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.3928/2000 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri $.R.Nayak, Chief Jusfice & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. : 'Bhagwa'r Prasad Yndnv, 5/0 La're Shri PEHTIONERS Hanuwa Prasad Yadav, Aged abouf 30 years, Class IV employee I.T.I. Koni, Bilaspur M.P., R/o Village Dhabalm P.O. Khadwa Bani The. Mungeli, Di’sf—Bilaspur. V/s l : 1. Smfe of Chhaffisgarh fhrough Secre'rury, Jan‘ Shak‘ri Niyozan, Mantmlaya, D.K.5.Bhawan Raipur (6.6.) : 2. Direc‘l’or, Direcfom're of Employee and Trainee, Mahila Polytechnic Baimn Bajar, Ruipur (C.G.) Join? Direc'i'ore, ‘Indusfrial Trainee, . Bilaspur. Area Bilaspur. : 4. Principal, Model Indusfrial Training Insii‘ru're - Koni, Bilaspur RESPONDENTS 5hri R.5.Pafel, Counsel for the petitioner. 5hri Vinny Harit, Dy.A.6. for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18.4.2006) The followmg oral order of the Court was passed by S R NAYAK CJ The petitioner was appomted as a Class-IV employee under the State Initially on 24 7 1993 on dolly wage basis after calling for names from Employment Exchange concerned. Although the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of 89 days, his services were continued from time to time till 2.6.1998. On 2.6.1998, the petitioner's services were regularized vide order Annexure P-1 and he was given regular pay—scale of Rs.750—945/-. When the matter stood thus, his service? were terminated by respondent No.4 on 15.2.2000 vide Annexure P/3 on the basis of a Circular issued by the Government of the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. Being aggrieved by the termination order - a- . @ dafed 15.2.2000, fhe pefifioner insfi‘fu‘l‘ed O.A.No.204/2000 before the Sfafe Adminisfmfive Tribunal, Rnipur Bench, Raipur (for shor‘r Whe Tribunal'). The Tribune! by ifs order dafed 6.3.2000 (Annexure P/5) held fha'f if has no jurisdiction To fry fhe pefi‘rion and nccordingiy reiurned 1he same wifh a direction to file lhe some before 1'he appropriufe forum. Therenf'rer, fhe pelifioner has filed This Wri'r Pi'rion under Arile 226/227 of Cons‘l’i‘rufion of India ques‘rioning ‘l validi'ry of The ac‘l'ion of he respondents. 2. We have heard The learned counsel for fhe arfiesy If was i ‘2'_ confended by 'l'he learned counsel for fe pe‘rifioner +ha1’ The four'lh rponde‘’ oc‘l’ed illegally in ferminafing 'l'he services of fh fi'i’ioner o 1‘he basis of ‘lhe Circular of fe overnment beca, Tha'l' Circular has no applioafion +0 fhe‘ case of fhe. pe-iifioner If was poinfed out that well before th Government issued the Circular, the petitioner's services ere egularized on 2.6.1998 itself and he was give a regula pay-scale, of Rs‘750-945. arned Deputy Advocate Generl, appearing for the respondents while supporting te iipuged action of teesondents would contend that since the respondent foundtht regularition of the services of the petitoner done n 2.6.1998 is fond to be irregular and illea, his services were temined, and therefore, exception could be taken to he impugned action af the fourth respondent. 3. W are of the considere opinion that the Circular of the Governmen khas no application o the case of the petitioner. It is true that a directin was issued by the Government to terminate the services of all daily-wagers appointed after 31.12.1988. But, for the regularization of the services of the petitioner with effect from 2.6.1998, the above Circular could have been applied to the case of the petitioner also. It needs to be noticed that before the Circular was issued, the petitioner's services were regularized with effect from 2.6.1998 granting him regular pay-scale also. It is trite to state that regularization of services created a vested. right in the ef fc he f p h esnl e pe n h G use . e w r n r le a h nn hyrp s ia za i o u gl rat no t e d t t o @ pe‘rifioner fo confinue in The service subjecf 1’0 terms and condi'rions of Rules governing the service. Therefore, the 4*“ respondent merely on ihe basis of Circular oughf nof +0 have ferminm‘ed ‘rhe services of fhe pe'riiioner. Secondiy, if needs +0 be noticed fha'i if if was fhe case of the respondenfs Thai ihe reguinriznfion of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2.6.1998 was irregular or iliegai, in that event the petitioner should have been notified about the same and he should have been given a reasonable opportunity to have a say in the matter and oniy after conducting required enqunry, the 4*“ respondent ought to have termlnated the serVIces of the petitioner It is not the case of the respondents that such a procedure was followed in the instant arise before terminating the services of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned action on the part of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of the Circular cannot be sustained for utter violation of princip les of natural justice, fair play in action. The cardinal principlethat the affected should be appraised is totally violated by the respondents/State authorities. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and full back wages, all attendant benefits, pecuniary or otherwise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, thefparties shall bear their respective costs. i , . r i Dim, Raogaheb Desinimkiii so. i ff W sal— i > Judge \ Guef Jushce i i " i dgnl i A