I9?tlS811 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Sin^e Bench: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Agpihotri, J. WRIT PETITION N0. 1589 OF 2002 Petitioners : 1. Badal Gupta, s^ed about 27 years, S/o Late Radheshyam Gupta, Balaji PCO, Dongargaon, District- RaJnandgaon (C.G.). 2, Naresh Devaagan, aged about 31 years, S/o Shn Jhagruram Dewaagaa, Tikripara, Chhuikhadaa, Distdct-Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 3. Vikas Bakshi, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Ashok Kiimar Bakshi, Rajmahal Chowk, Chhukhadan, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 4. AnU Pal, ^ed about 31 years, S/o Shri Shatruhan Pal, Tikripara, Chhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5. Narayaa Kamde, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Dukhiraia Kam.de, Tikripara, Chhuikhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 6. Smt. Uma Yadav, aged abozit 34 years, W/o Shri Gyan Siagh Yadav, Tikripara, Chhmkhadaa, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 7. Mukesh Kumbhkar, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Kiilpatram, Tikripara, Chhuikhadan, Distt. - Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 8. Chetan Anaad Mahobia, aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Bholarain, Sanjay Gaadhi Marg, ChhuiKhadaa, Distt,- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 9. Ku. Rachiia Shrivastava, aged about 32 years, D/o ShriRajendra Lal, Near Post OflSce, Chhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 10. Ku. Ritu Shrivastava, aged about 31 years, D/o Shri Rajendra Pal, Near Post Office, Chhuikhadan, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 11. Ku. Pratiina Choubey, suged about years, D/o Shn Naval Kishor, Near Power House, Chhuikhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C. G.), 12. Smt. Khursheed Khaa, aged about 29 years, W/o Shri Qasita Khaa, Masjid Lixie, Pafhaapara, Chhuikhadaa, Distt- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 13, Ramdular Maadavi, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Paltu Raai, Jamaat Para, Chhuikhadan, Distt,- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 14. Smt. Kamlesh Soni, aged about 36 years, W/o Shri Rajendra Soni, Brahmaa Para, Ward No. 7, Chhuikhadan, Distt.-Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 15. Ku. Padnia Devi Wasiuk, aged about 30 years, D/o Shri Jethainal, Masjid Line, Pathanpara, Chhuikhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 16. Ku. Neetu Nagarchi, aged about 26 years, D/o Shri Dhaairam, Jamat Para, Ward No. 3, ChhuiKhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). •^iy 'Y'-' Respondents Versus :1. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Department of Environnient and Town Plaaniag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. CoUector Distdct Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). 3. Nagar Paachayat Chhuikhadaa Tahsil Chhiiikhadan, District Rajnaadgaon through Chief Municipal Officer, WITH WRIT PBTITION No. 1618 OF 2002 Petitioner Respondents Versus : 1. 2. 3. 3. Ravmdra Chawda, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Aiaar Siagh Chawda, AniU Para, Khairagarh, Distt,- Rajnandgaon. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Deparfaaient of Environnient aad Town Planning, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.). CoUector District Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). N^ar Paachayat Chhuikhadan, TahsU Chhiiikhadaa, Distnct Rajnandgaon fhrough Chief Municipal Ofl&cer. Kuman Kiran MaU D/o ShriT.R. MaU, R/o Dauchaura, Khair^arh, Distt.-Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). &- 4 & WRIT PBTITION No. 16S9 OF 2002 Petitloner Respondeuts Versus : 1. 2. 3. Ku, Kiraa Mall, aged about 31 years, D/o T.R. Mall, R/o Near Forcst Naka, Dau Chourha, Khairagarh, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy, Environnient & Town Developinent Department, D,K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiir. N^ar Panchayat Chhiiikhadaa, fhrough its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Paachayat, Chhuikhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon. Uinakant Mahobiya S/o Balbhadra Mahobiya, R/o Mahobiya Para, Chhuikhadaa, Distt.- Rajnaadgaon. Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioners. Miss Sunita Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Senior Advocate with Shri Sandeep Dubey, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Amit Verma, counsel for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDBR (2nd January, 2006) Heard. 1. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioners subinits that fhe petitioners in W.P. No. 1589/2002, W.P. No. 1618/2002 and W.P. No. 1659/2002 were appoiated by Chief Municipal Ofificer, Na^ar Paachayat, Chhziikhadaa by order dated 24.8.1998 as Shiksha Karmis Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III. Smce all fhe three petitions iavolved conuiion question of law, hence, aU fhe three petitions are beiag disposed of by fhis common order, The petitioners were given fhe appouitraent orders aad fhey joiaed the ser^ice on respective posts. The petitioners contmued to work as Shiksha Karmis Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III respectively. 2. The State Govemment, by its order dated 29.7.2002, while exercising its power Under section 331 of Chhatdsgarh Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961 passed ia Case No. 3151/18/2002, quashed the resolution No. 1 passed by fhe Staadiag Cominittee of the Nagar Paachayat, Chhiukhadaa m its proceedings dated 21.8.1998 and the Resolution No. 1 dated 8.9.1998 passed by the Education Committee, whereby fhe petitioners were appoiated as Shiksha Karmis Grade-I, Grade-II aad Grade-III respectively. 3. Shri Jitendra PaU, learaed counsel appearmg for the petitioners m W.P. No. 1589/2002 and W.P. No. 1618/2002 and Miss Sunita Jam, learaed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner ia W.P. No. 1659/2002 coritend fhat fhe State Goverument caauot vaiy or rcverse fhe order passed by fhe Nagar Paachayat, Chhuikhadan for selecting and appointiag fhe petitioners on tfae posts of Shiksha Kamiis wifhout notice to fhe iaterested parties aad wifhout affordmg aa opportunity of hearing ia support of such orders: 4. Shri Vmay Harit, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate appearing for fhe State Gtovemment, per contra, contended fhat fhe State Goveranient is fuUy enipowered in revision to satisfy itself as to fhe correctaess, legality or propriety of ony order passed by the Nagar Paachayat. Learaed counsel furfher submitted that ia fhe present case entire selection process has been quashed aad as such it was not necessary to issue notice to the petitioners iadividuaUy aad to afiFord an opportunity of hearmg. The State Goverament has issued notice to fhe concemed officers of Nagar Paachayat aad has exaoiiaed aU fhe connected records. 5. Shri Aniit Vemia, leamed counsel appeariag for Nagar Paachayat, Chhuikhadaii fairly subniits fhat Nagar Panchayat, Chhuikhadaa has appoiated fhe petitioners after due approval by fhe selection coinmittee through selection process, ia accordaace wifh law aad fhe Nagar Paachayat has uot conducted aay enquiry or has not issued any show cause notice to fhe petitioners before passiag fhe iinpugned terrcunation order dated 2.8.2002. It was further contended that fhe Nagar Panchayat has acted and passed fhe impugned termination order on fhe direction of fhe State Govemnient on the basis of its order dated 29.7.2002 passed ia case No. 3151/18/2002. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties. 7. The State Goveranient in exercise of its power of revision under Section 331 of fhe Chhatdsgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 has passed the impugned order dated 29.7.2002, Proviso to Sub- section 2 of Section 331 clearly provides fhat the State Govemnient caanot vaiy or reverse aay order passed by the Additional Collector, prescribed authority or aay officer ^;,: ^m^ appoiated or aufhonsed by the State Govemnient under fhis Act wifhout issuing show cause notice to fhe pardes interested to the appeal aad without affordiag aa opportunily of hearing ia support of such order. Section 331 of the Act, 1961 reads as under:- "Power of State Goveniment of Revision.-(l) The State Govemnient may, for fhe purpose of satisfyiag itself as to fhe correctaess, legallty or propriety of aay order passed by a Divisional Conimissioner, CoUector, prescribed aufhority or aay officer appointed or aufhorised by the State Govemiaent under fhis Act, caU for tihie counected records and raay ia doiag so direct fhat pendiag the exainiaation of the record such order be held in abeyance. (2) On examiaiag the records fhe State Goveraiaent niay inodify or reverse the order of a Divisional Coimiiissioner, Collector, prescribed aufhority or aay other officer appoiated or authorised by the State Govemment under this Act as it deemed fit: Provided fhat no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to fhe parties iaterested to appeal and to be heard ia support ofsuch order." 8. Learaed counsel for fhe State Govenunent fairly contended fhat no show cause notice was given to fhe petitioners who arc iastaat pardes aad no hearmg was affordiag ia support of fhe order passed by the N^ar Panchayat. 9. ReUaD.ee on learaed counsel on decision of fhe Supreine Cozirt in Unioa of ladia and others Vs. O. Chakradhar1 is not relevant to the facts of fhe piiesent case because ia the iastaat case fhe selection was not canceUed by the aufhorities who have i(2002) 3 Supreme Court cases 146 8 conducted fhe selection process and appointaient orders have been passed fhere of. In fhe present case, flie State Govemnient has passed the irapugned order in exercise of its Revisional power under section 331 of Chhattisgarh MTUiicipaIities Act, 1961. The State Goveniment was required to give show cause notice to the pardes concemed, affordmg ao. opportunity of hearing ia support of the order which was subject inatter of fhe revision. This petition deserves to be allowed on the short ginund fhat fhe show cause uotice aad opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners, which is raandatoiy under the provisions oflaw. On fhe question ofback wages the petitioners have not produced aiiy evidence to show that the petitioners were not gaiafally employed elsewhere. Even ofherwise, in view of fhe fact the mipugned termination order is held as iavalid for uon-comLpUance of principle of natural justice, the petitioners are entitled to 25% ofback wages from fhe date of termmation. 10. For fhe reasons stated above, fhe petitions are aUowed aad fhe impugned tennination order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the Nagar Paachayat, Chhuikhadan pursuaat to order dated 29.7.2002 passed by fhe State Govermiient and order dated 29.9.2002 are quashed aad set aside. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu