HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4157 of 2808 Petitioners 1. Smt. Kumari Dhurva, wife of Shri Ajay Kumar Dhurva, aged 28 ysars, occupation - service, presently posted as SteffNurse, E.S.I. Hosptel, Rajnandgaon and resident of Station Para, Pandurang Colony, Rajnandgaon, Permanent resident of Vitlage Kusyart, PJO. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 2. Smt. Maryutata Kokite, wife of Shri Pratap Singh Kokila, aged 33 years, occupation -service, presently posted as Staff Nurse, E.S.I. Hospital, Rajnandgaon, residant of Vilit^e Sivni, P.0. Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Deparftnent of Labour, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director, Employees State Insurance Services, Directorate, D/290-5, Tagora Nagar, Raipur (CG). 3. The Superintendent, E.S.I. Hosptel, Rajnandgaon (CG). ResBondents (Writ PeUtion under Article 226 ofthe Constitutlon of tndia) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajesv Shrivastava with Ms. AsBia Slngh Sisodiya, counsel for ttie petitionere. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 4 day of August, 2008 With the consent of learned counset appearing for both Ihe |»irfes,the matter is heard finally. 2) Leamed counset appearing for the petitioners submits that pursiant to the order dated 25-3-2008 passed in Writ PeUtion (S) No. 1744 of 2008 (Ku. Shweta Mathews and others Vs. State of ChhatU^arti and another), the Director, Directorate of Emptoyees State Insurance, has issued a noBce dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure P/1)/ According to the leamed counsel for ttie petltioners, L'_,^L/-iAL^.l=tfH£T-^;^:-;^:--iT-iS^EI I'^BBSEB'. "T^s^m^-^ —'~L m Raju show cause notjce is vague and does not specify any particular ineident of irregularity or illegality. Thus, the peUtioners are not capabfe of replytng to the showcause notice. 3) Be that as it may, on perusal <rf the show cause nottce, 'rt appears Vnat the grievance of the pettUoners is correct. Learrted counset appearing for the respondents/State also does not flnd proper requirement ofthe noflce In the impugned noiUce. In view of that, thls notice may not be treated as proper notiee and the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice giving ttie details of the irregularity and itlegatity coramitted in the setection process in order to wiabte the petitioners to file proper reply vnthin a reasonable period, 4) Accordingly, thenoUcedated 21-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the petition is atlowed to the above extent. __———-—~~~ Sd/- SatishK.Agnatotri Judge ^.- •i^S' li