’ : Smt. Ramsheela Nirmaikar Aged ~— 30 years, Wife of Shri Ar Ninnalkar, Wmkg s ~ Anganbadi Sahayika? AI vilie Parewadih, within Gra Panchayat Makakhurd, Block Patan, Distt. - Dg .G.) VERSUS ur (C State of Chhaaisgarh Through ~— The Secretar pg y, Department of Panchayat & ul Development, antralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan‘, Raipur. 2. The Collector, District Durg (C.G. 3. Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare Departmem, urg (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive . Ofllcer Janpad Panchayat Patan, District urg (C.G.) '‘ PETITIONER un in a ag m h . Rra M ) D , D WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTHUIION OF INDIA SB: Hun’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotyg J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thalmr, Dy. Advocate General with Smt. Smite Ghai, Panel Lawer for the Stateesondents 1 to 3. y /rp (Passed on 1 day of April, 2009) With the consent of eamed counsel appearing for the palties, e matter is heard finally. 2. Notice was issued on 16.7.2008, despite service ofnotice, no return has been tiled on behalfofthe respondents. On query, asto whether this case is distinguishable from Ku. Punam and others v, State ofChhattisgarh Others’ which was decided by this Court; learned Panel Lawyer submits that she has not received instructions. Ifthe impugned order was passed atter affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the ratio laid down in the matter ofK'u. Punam (supra) may not be applicable to the v facts ot‘the case. in the event, the impugned order has been passed without following principles ofnatural justice, this case stands covered by the ratio laid down in the matter ofKu. Punam (supra). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts and question of law invoived in this petition are identical to that ot‘Ku. Punam (supra). i , ‘ 2008 (2) com 366 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASIUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3750 ofZOGS RESPONDENTS GRAL ORDER 7m l th On perusal of the papers, it appears that the case is squarely covered by the decision in Ku. Punam (supra) as the impugned order does not indicate that any show-cause-notice was issued before passing the impugned order. Shri Thakur submits that the authorities shall take appropriate steps in terms of the judgnent and order passed in Ku. Punam (supra), before assing any order. He submits that show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioner granting her two weeks time to tile reply and after having considered the reply, the State authorities shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. The concerned authorities will try to complete the whole exercise within a period ofthree weeks. In view of foregoing: according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and the judgnent passed in the matter of Ku. Punam (supra), the impugned termination order dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P11) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents/authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, as above-stated by learned Deputy Advocate General, within a eriod ofthree weeks. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge p p