éuRTf’ lJ‘\ \lE) WRIT APPEAL No 83 /2010 ' ’ v . V (Ansmg out of the order dated 20/01 /2010 passed by the learned Slngle Judge of th1s H1gh Court Hon’ble Justlce Shr1 Satlsh K Agnlhotrl 1n W P 1829/2002) APPELAN’T‘ ggm: Emma Bend! Chandrabhan Singh, Aged aboutSl‘4ré‘ years, S/O Ram Singh, R/o Village Bijbhatha, P.O Kosmatara, Teh: Pandfu-JV Distt: Bilaspur (C.G. VERSUS of .Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat and _Rura1 r Development Department, / D.K.S BhaWan, Raipur (C.G). 1. State Q Deputy D1rector Panchayat Soclal Serv1ce Bllaspur C G «‘1‘. 34. Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, through its CEO, Lormi, Distt Bilaspur (C.G). § '5’ Gram Panchayat Kosmatara through its Sarpanch, The. Lorm1, Dlstt Bilaspur (C.G). “W ) @5" Uderam, S/O Hariram Kashyap, Gram Panchayat Kosmatara, Teh. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 [1l OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION'BENCHI ACT, 2006 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE 5HRI I.M.QUDDU5I & HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ. WRIT AP?EAL N033 OF 2010 Presen‘f: I ' Mr. V. Sharma, Advocate for 'rhe appeHanf. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the S‘mTe. Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocafe for responden‘r No.5-Uderam. ORAL JUDGMENT {Passed on 12’" April, 2010) 1AA. Quddusi, J: 1. Heard. 2. Since no one had pu‘l' in appearance on behaif of fhe respondenfs No.3 & 4 before ‘Hae learned Single Judge, if is no? necessary ‘l'o issue nofice To ‘H‘iem as we infend 1'0 remh‘ This case To fhe learned Single Judge on The following facTs and reasoning. 3. The wriT peTiTion filed by The wriT appellanT in This CourT was regisTered as W.P. No.1829/2002 and The same was dismissed on 20.1.2010 by The learned Single Judge on The Technical ground ThaT as The Original ApplicaTion No.1262/96 filed by The wriT appellanT before The MP. 5TaTe A’dminisTraTive Tribunal was dismissed as ’wiThdrawn vide order daTed 9.7.2002 and no liberTy was granTed To The wriT appellanT To file fresh peTiTion, Therefore, The wriT peTiTion is noT mainTainable, as The learned counsel for The peTiTioner in The wriT peTiTion had failed To .place full facTs before The learned Single Judge To The effecT ThaT original applicaTion before The Tribunal was noT amainTainable aT all as The peTiTioner, who was full Time employee of Gram PanchayaT KosmaTara and working as SecreTary of Gram ‘ PanchayaT KbsmaTara, was Tremoved from The services by The Sarpanch of ThaT:6ram PanchayaT, and Thus was wiThdrawn. / Aggeilan'l'f Chandrabhan Singh Pz‘ri‘rioner Vs Respondems Sfm‘e of Chhaffisgarh & ofhers 4. We have perused The impugned order which was passed by The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayaf Kosma‘rara Gram PanchayaT KosmaTar-a w.e.f. 15.3.1996. 5. Though, iniTiaIIy The wriT appeHanT was a governmenT servanT, however, vide order daT'ed 27.1.1995 depuTed To work as ‘ParT- Time SecreTnry’ on The monThIy honorarium of Rs.200/-. LaTer on, his services were Taken as fuii-Time SecreTary by a resoiuTion passed by The Gram PanchayaT KosmaTara and The order daTed 26.10.1995 appoinTing him as full Time SecreTary was passed by The Sarpanch, Gram PanchayaT KosmaTara. Therefore, he was a full Time SecreTary and employee of The Gram PanchayaT KosamaTara and was noT a governmenT servanT when removed from The posT of SecreTary by The Sarpanch, Gram PanchayaT KosamaTara and as such. his original applicaTion before The Tribunal was noT mainTainable. 6. if The wriT appellanT has wiThdrawn The original applicaTion wiThouT seeking liberTy To file a fresh original applicaTion and The original applicaTion was noT mainTainable aT all and he files a wriT peTiTion in The High CourT, ThaT cannoT be TreaTed as conTinuaTion To original applicaTion‘as his original applicaTion was noT mainTainable buT The wriT peTiTion was mainTainable againsT his removal from The posT of full Time SecreTary by The Sarpanch of Gram PanchayaT KosamaTara. Therefore, The principles of res judicm‘a or consTrucTive res judicafa would noT be applicable in his case and accordingly, we are of The opinion ThaT The wriT peTiTion requires adjudicaTion. 7. In view of The above, we seT aside The impugned order daTed A 20.1.2010 passed by The W.P. removing The wriT appeIlanT from The posT of SecreTnry, learned Single Judge in 'No.1829/02 and‘requesT The learned 5ingle Judge To adjudicaTe— ' The maTTer on meriTs. @ 8. CerTified as rules. copy per / T Sd/— . i, . I.M.Quddusi l Sdl- Prasha‘“ Kumar Judge Mishi'a . ,L Judge