/-^ ^- \^^j o ~}.^-^ ^^ ij? ii a IN THE HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTES6ARH ATBILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0.10"^ /2010 APPELLANT (Respondent No.3) Daulatram Jaiswa!, aged about 40 years, Son of Shn Shersingh, Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.6.) RESPONDENTS ffetitioner) VERSUS 1; Jhasketan Prasad Jaiswal, S/o. Shri DubrajSingh Jaiswal, aged about 37 years, Ex. Panchayat Secretary, 6ram Panchayat, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchaydt, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.6.) The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.6.) 4. 6ram Panchayat, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.6.) WRFT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 qyOF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HI&H COURT<APPEAl. TO DIVlgJON BENCH)ACT. ZOO^READ x^y ^/'c,X ^" u WrTH RULE 15fT(10) (Q) OF THE CHHATn:S6ARH HIGH COURT RULES 2007. T"SX^E^3^S^ A-; ^^^^^^»M^s;BoutN^atn'.iuitt^i^^^sKa<ai^;i^! ^:.'.K: s :.' MBMKSIifl^iKttgEtSiTOffliimtSISuniariMisiiKiaB •APPELL^NT: ^VntAmneAlN^lO'TajBttt Daulatrantalatswal Versus ^B^Esi'owaws- .JbausdEeteut^Fasad ^aiswat& Ors. AooeafEmce: •'•:^-:• ::.. .•;:'.. :/ - ' • ': :;.' •: :;:.'';, SfariE..8.Pat^cOTUisd^ JSlmPank^ Shrivastriy^eoua^fiwre^^ Niss.^eepaUPand^ Pa^LawyCT^the State^spc^ No.2;&,,3.;-\'^f ,::':' in^ABpe^umlwiS^ffi^aTOi^lffii^^Ii^Mt^^^atehri ;"^'? ^^^i{3!LBiDieffi^IMiiMa^!nt AUi(»Mi'.1^ ORAL^RBER (27.04.2010) P aullM.Oudflusi..I. Heardle^edeoim^fiwlfep^rti^ (2) TMs w^ ap^ ^a^^^0.?^ (S^i^ui»A^passey^ ^ffl inW.P^Nogi^l3SW5,swliictrfl^^ the gnevatu»'1l^^»Ki!^:$>ass^^ P/1F to the ^ ^lh^sgaiit;|Bay!iti;r,^iel-e^ilfee^^ tl posfc<^l>a^i%^iRa|BBi(^eS:|^ty^^ ^ppoijt^^ ofjheanlE^^lun^^a^ •fhosejproce^liBgs.;, ,:,'^,/ -.' .;;,'^ :<.' '':''; •;1 ,: -'..; ::".".^::." •,::';:r' y^S,S r SSStBt^ •s'^--:^^iS^'S ^&i^B (3) Thereafter, the Deputy Director on fhe remissioa by Ihe ord|r dated 30/04/05 (Annexure P/l to tire writ petition) Withqrt furth|r afGMdingan opportunity bfhearic^to^^l^ OTder<mt} post ofPuudiayatKarmi (SeclS^^ __ (4) Leamed Singte Jiidge qaasfaed Ihe unp»gined OTdcrs dategt I5/12/2QQ4 and 30/04^05 forw^ofimpkiactaientflfaeee^ party i.e. petitioner^as a party/responctart and aUowed tiie writ petition. (5) .Learaed eouasel for tiie writ appeUant has submttted tt^ learned SmgleJodge ought to have remaaded tiie matter for fresh^ eonsideration tnrt tiiat has not been done. (6) We have perused flie impugned order dated 6/04/20l&.;In Ae impugned order, it has been mentioaed tiiat Ifae impugned orders dated 15/12/2004 and 30/04i2005, without gomg into the meaats, «e quashedforwant ofimpleadmentofthepetitioneTasnecessatyparty. Thsrefore, it is alwiys opea io Ifae <^cers concemed i.e. Director/Deputy Director, Panchayat, Ctihrttisgarti to imple^ tiie petitioner as party/respondent and provide him an opportumty of hearing and only thereafter to pass an appropriate order, 'HierefOFe, Ifaere was no necessity to mfintion this as it is implied ty the impugned order itself. (7) The question h^ beenraisedasto wfao wilt workasSecretaty. In fhis regafd Ifae consequence of the order KI Ifaat on Ae dato of passingctflfaeimpugiMdorderda^ 15/12^004 (Anneiaire^ order dated 30/104(2005 (Annexure P/t) wlrosoeyey was workiDg as Secret^wyidischai^fhework,lreatingasiftheseord£Tshad^i^ been passed; (8) Thewritappealisdisposedofaccordmgly. Sd/- I.M^Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge :^'tiKi^^! iM;^st^NS^^^V^^SrKte ^N®i%^