o^, ,c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B: .4PPELLANTS RESPONDENT Hon'ble Shri Suml Kumar Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra^JJ. Writ Appeal No. 262 of2010 1. 2. 3. Vs. State ofChhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary Department oflrrigation D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) The Executive Engineer, Vidut/Yantriki Light Machinery, Nalkup & Gate, Durg (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Tube Well Constmction, Sub Division No.26, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Ramnatfa Yogi S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Nafh Yogi, Aged about 51 years Tractor Driver, Nalkup Sinchai Vibhag, Rajnandgaon (CG) Appearance: Mr. A.S. Kachwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Somkant Venna, Advocate for the respondent. WRIT APPEAL U/S 2(1) OF APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT. 2006 ORAL ORDER (03.05.2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Simil Kumar Sinha, J. HeardonIA.No. 1/2010. (2) I.A. No. 1/2010 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. Accordmg-to the ofBce report the appeal is yBarred by 54 days oflimitation. '^ s? -2- ^ (3) On due consideration ofthe submissions ofleamed counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeUants have successfully explained the delay in filing the appeal and the same deserves to be condoned. (4) Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2010 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. (5) Heard on admission. (6) The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29a March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 556372009 by the leamed Single Judge ofthis Court. (7) By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and has quashed the order conlained in service book of the respondent whereunder the increments granted to the respondent on account of Family Planning Operation has been withdrawn without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case. The learned Single Judge, relying on catina of decisions of the Supreme Court held tfaat it was incumbent upon Ihe State Govemment to afford an opportunity to the respondent •before passing such order which shall have the civil consequences. The leamed Single Judge therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, however, a liberty was resei'ved to the State to take appropriate steps, ifso advised, in accordance with law •^•<^'^. ^ <i<2i. ''^;:, ® 5 and on its own merits after following principles ofnaturaljustice. (8) On due consideration ofthe submission of leamed counsel for the appellants and on pemsal of the records of the writ petition, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the leamed Single Judge which may require interference by this Court in the writ appeal. (9) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed summarily. f'':J /^K (10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 4