,:^3S.^.t:-»'—— '^^^' l^ HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.61 of 1996 Petitioners: 2. 4. M-^^: It^-c^^:^ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Respondents: Versus 1. 2. Anil Shrivasta.va S/o Late LsP, Shrivastava aged about 30 years, Sub-Engineer Saiijay KuBiai'Tuiigidwar, S/o Shri. T.A, Tinigidwar, aged about 32 years, Sub-Eugiiieer T.P. Sirmour S/o Late B.B. Sinzionr, aged about 34 yeaj:s, Sub-Engmeer B.P. Verma S/o Shii B.R. Veruia, aged about 29 years, Sub-Engiaeer Saajay Kuniar Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Sajiwaa Sharma, aged about 30 years, Telephone Operator Niranjaii Sharaia, S/o Shri R.K. Vyas, aged about 30 years, Telephone Operator Shriniwas Khoshla, S/o late R.K. Khoshla, aged about 33 yeers, Tisiie Keeper K,K. Aiya S/o Late Atiaa Ram Aiya, aged about 39 years, Tioie Keeper Rakesh Kumar Sharaia, S/o V.P. Shamia, aged about 30 years, Timie Keeper G.P. Rajak, S/o Shri Gulab Siagh Rajak, aged about 42 years, Work Mistry Brijesh Kuniar Choubey S/o Shri K.P, Choubey, aged about 45 years, Work Mistiy S. No. Ito 11 C^ireoftlie Registrar, Indira Gaadhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Ki'ashak Nagar, Raipur, • Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur, fhrough flie Vice ChanceUor beuig ihe Chief Executive Officer, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, fhrough flie Vice ChaiiceUor being the Chief Executive Officer State of Madhya Pradesh fchrough the Secretary, Higher ^r EdTicatiou Departinent, VaUabh Bhawaa, Bhopal (M.P.) Besich: Hon'ble Mi\. Justice Satish K. J^ssihotri. ShriT.K. Tiwad, Counsel for fhe petitioners. Shii Maaiadra Shrivastava, Leamed Senior Counsel wifh Shri Amit Verma, Cozinsel for the Respondents No. 1 aad 2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Counsel for fhe Respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (16thJanuaiy, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court was passed by K. Agsaihotri, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed by oider dated 23,09.1992 (Annexiires A to E) on varioiis posts 011 work charge/adhoc/teniporary basis. The petitioners were posted accordmgly, By order dated 5, 12,1992 (Annexure F), appointment orders of aU the petitioiiers were kept ia abeyance tiU the creation/ sao.ction order was to be released by the Goveniment. It was further stated isi the inipiigned order dated 5.12. 1992, that the appointment of the petitioners were siibject to crcation/saDiction of the posts by the Goveranient aad no post has been saiictioiied/create.d, therefore, appoio.tnient orders of tlie petitioners were kept ui abeyance. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that the iaipugned order dated 5.12,1999, whereby fhe appohitnients has been kept ui abeyaace aniounte to termio.ation of the services of the petitioners. No attenipt was niade for creation/saiiction of the posts of flie petitioners. The petitioners filed fhis petitioii impiignmg fhe order dated 5.12.1992 (Annexnre F) seekmg directions against flie respondents No, 1 aad 2 for restoring fhe appoiatBient oi^ders s ^ r 4. dated 23.09.1992 (Annexurc A to E). It was pointed out fhat during tlie pendency ofthe petition au enqiiiry was held wherem it was found fhat the appomtoient of the petitioners was not ia accordaace with law aiid as such, the teroiiiiation orders agajnst the petitioners were passed on 29.04,1998 (Armexure L). The petitioners, by way of aa appUcation, ainended fhe prayer to fhe effect tiiat fhe impzigned tei-miaation order dated 29.04.1998, caacellmg fb.e appom.tnient order dated 23,09.1992, be quashed. This Court, byway oforder dated 23.09,1996, granted statiis quo as ou that day wifh regand to fhe ser^dces of the petitioners. Accordingly they continzied to work. Shii T,K, Ti^vari, learnecl coiinsel appearisig for fhe petitioners snbniits that the services of fhe petitioners were regzilajized and szibseqnently the ioiptigned order dated 5.12.1992 keepuig appointment ordere ia aiid fhe order dated 29.04.1998, cancelUiig the appoiataieut order dated 23,09.1998, were passed without givmg an opportunity ofheajliig to flie petitiouers, The impugned ord.ers involved civU consequences ejid no order which visit wifh penal consequences caii be passed wifhozit giviiig show cause notice aiid without giviag aa opportTinity of hearing to the employees to piit up their cases. Shri Manuidra Shrivastava, learned Seuior Counsel witih. Shri Amit Verxna, leamed coiinsel, appearing for fbie respondent No, 1, snbmits that in. the present case, it has been found ia the iiitenial enquuy that the entire selection process was improper, Ulegal aad D.ot ia accordaiice with law. It was furfher contended fhat when WIJ!-'N|^!.:te^ t^ fc:^--^T%' -r-X-^-^- the entire selection process itself was quashed, it is well settied prmciple of law, that no io.dividzial notice is necessary. 5, Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, leEtraed cotinsel appeariiig for fhe respondent No. 3, adopts fhe submissioiis niade by Shri Maaindra Shrivastava, leanied Senior Counsel, appearing for the s'espondent No, 1, 6, I have heard leaxaed cozinsel for the parties aad perused the records appended to fhe petition as weU as to the retzini. 7, It is evident, that the petitioners were appointed on adhoc/work- charge/te2iiporaiy basis, on vaiious posts on a particular pay~ scale, The appoiatment ou regulaj: pay-scale nieans that the appoiiTtaient was made 011 regzilar basis. Even the subsequent onler dated 5.12,1992; (Aniiexzire F) also mdicates that the appoio.tsiients were kept in abeyaiice waitiiig for sauction/creation of the posts by fhe Goveniment. The appoiutnient orders were iiot qiiashed but kept iii abeyance, which clearly estabUshes that the appointmente Biade was on regular basis, uot on dajty wages/work-chm'ge/tem.porary basis, as the creation of posts is uot required for appoiEitmg aii eniployee on daily wages/work-charge/teniporaiy basis. These lypes of appointments are Diade keepio-g ia view the requirements ofwork for a particular period, Readiag ofappomtment orders as well as tlie abeyance oider dated 5.12.1992, makes it clear tliat tlie appoiutments were contemplated to be niade agaiast regular posts, The appointment of the petitioiiers 011 2-egular basis were kept in abeyao.ee but ailowed the petitioners to contiiiue on daUy ^-^^^^:^^^^^^ wages/adhoc/work-charge/teniporaiy basis, as admitted by learaed Senior Counsel Shri Manindra Shrivasteva, 8. The iatenial enquiry culoiinated iiito fhe cancellation of fhe appomtment order dated 23.09.1992, by oider dated 29.04.1998. The petitioners have worked for about three moiiths on regular basis biit prior to fhat they have been working as daUy wages/ work cha-rge/terapoi'a^ basis, By virtue of oi-der dated 23,09,1996 passed by this Conrt, the petitioners have beeu working ou dally wages/work-charge/teinporaiy basis. Sisice aa opportunity of heaiiag was not given to fhe petitioners l3efore cmicelliiig the appoiatment of fhe petitioners on regular basis, the impzigned ordere dated 5.12.1992 (Annexure F) and 29.04.1998 (Annexure L), are qiiashed aud set aside. 9, For flie reasons stated above, fhis petition. is atlowed, aad the respondent No. 1 is directed to eonsider the cases of tJie petitioners for regularization, iii accordance wifh law, withia a period ofthree iiiouflis from the receipt/prodiictioii ofcopy ofthe order, No oider as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anin