^' ^ » ^ ^^J^3_026<4>Jr BEFORE THE HON*BL3 H.P.STAT2 ADMI-^TSl-RATIVB TRIB'J^^AL BEHCH AT RAIPUR^ (M.P*) Origtonal Appliaatioa BI<(S^ Deendayat Yadav son of Shri Amar Sai'Yadav R/0 Masjidpara^ Lftiaramjaigarfa^ District Raigarh (M^Po) Versas ^ A££lxc^nt l^ State of M^Po (rhroagh The Secretary^ School Educatioa. Deparfcment^ Ministry'o,f School Sdacation Department Mantralay, VallaiDh Bhawon^ Bhopal^ M^P.^ 2«, Dlrector^ Pabiic Instruotion Satpada Bhawaa^ Bhopal (H<P<,), 3* Chief Execative Officer^ District Panchayat and Additxonal Director^ Pablic Instractiona, Raigarh (M.P.) 4 <. Dep.ity Director ^ Sdacation District Dharaingaygarh District Raigarh H«P.^ »^ ^ Non^aDplicants ^ APPLICATXON CJNDER SECTION 19 OF TKE ADMIZCTSTRATIVE TRIBU'I^AL ACT 1985. ^ r\ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR PETITSONER RESPONDENT (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No.3026 of 2005 Deendayal Yadav. VERSUS State of M.P. and others. ShriA.K. Prasad.counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents /State. WRIT PETIT80NUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (18.08.2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finaliy. 2. The petitioner who happens to be the nephew of the wife of the deceased empioyee namely Luraram was appointed as a Peon on the pay scale of 750-945 vide order dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure A-1) in accordance with the circular of the State Government. Subsequentiy, vide order dated 29.7.1998 (Annexure A-8) appointment of the petitioner was canceled in yiew of the circular dated 10.9.1995. The said circular provides that the appointment of other relations, namely grand daughter, son-in-iaw, brother-in-law, nephew, niece, daughter-in-law, sister-in-iaw etc. was not in accordance with iaw. That being so, the appointments made after 3.1.1995 on the compassionate basis being iilegal are required to be cancelled. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that itis well settied that the circular or the rule or any other statutory provision inciuding the ruies framed under Articie 309 of the Constitution of India, cannot be glven retrospective effect to take away the rights accrued in favour of the government employee. in support of this contention, he has ^- .--yS^--.?' • .^u -2-- relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of P. TuSsi Das and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 364. Relevant portion ofthe said order reads as under: "14...........Consequently, we are unable to agree that the legislature could have validly denied those rights acquired by the appellants retrospectively not only deprivlng them of such rights but a!so enact a provision to repay and restore the amounts paid io them to the State. The provislons of the Act, though can be valid in its operation "no futuro" cannot be held valid insofar as it purports to restore status quo ante for the past period taking away the benefits already avaiiable accrued and acquired by them" 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/State submits that appointment of the petitioner is even otherwise iilegal and retrospective effect can be given to the circuiar of the State Government. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Circular dated 10.9.1995 declaring all the appointments as not in accordance with law has been issued without any basis, with retrospective effect. The circular, in view of the settled position of iaw as stated above, cannot take away the rightof the petitioner, which has accrued on account of his appointment in accordance with the drcular ofthe State Govemment dated 10.6.1994. 7. Ordered accordingiy. The petition is allowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^r