Khamhan Lal And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2573 Chatt

                          1

                                                      NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                WPS No. 4051 of 2013

1. Khamhan Lal S/o Shri Jivrakhan Lal Sahu Aged
  About 57 Years, Majdoor Govt. Polytechnic
  Durg 491001 Tah And Distt. Durg C.G.

2. Suraj   Lal   Thakur   S/o    Late    Shri   Shivdayal
  Thakur Aged About 46 Years, Majdoor Govt.
  Polytechnic Durg 491001 Tah. And Distt. Durg
  C.G.

3. Bhukhan Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramhu Sahu
  Aged     About     50       Years,    Majdoor     Govt.
  Polytechnic Durg 491001 Tah. And Distt. Durg
  C.G.

                                        ­­­­ Petitioners

                      Versus

1. State   Of    Chhattisgarh      Through      Principal
  Secretary      Technical     Education    Science   And
  Technology Department Govt. Of Chhattisgarh
  Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Pin 492001 Tah
  And Distt. Raipur C.G.

2. Principal     Government      Polytechnic      College
  Durg 491001 Tah. and Distt. Durg C.G.

                                        ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioners :­Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate. For State :­ Mr. Soumya Rai, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

27/09/2021

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners were regularized on the

post of Majdoor by order dated 31.01.2008

but by order dated 13.03.2008 petitioners'

order of regularization has been revoked

without affording them any opportunity of

hearing and without giving any show cause

notice to the petitioners which violate

principles of natural justice and,

therefore, the impugned order dated

13.03.2008 is liable to set aside.

3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned

order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the

parties, considered their rival submissions

made herein­above and went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

5. True it is that petitioners' were

regularized on the post of Majdoor by order

dated 31.01.2008 but it has been revoked by

order dated 13.03.2008 without affording any

opportunity to the petitioners. The Supreme

Court, in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Mishra

& Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Others1 has held that even before

cancellation of regularization, the

opportunity of hearing is necessary.

Paragraph 17 of the judgment states as

under:­

"17. As such, apart from the Circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, dated 05.11.2009, the appellants' cases were also required to be taken into consideration in view of the exception carved out in the case of 1 (2019) 17 SCC 648

State of Karnataka v. Umadevi2. We find that the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had rightly submitted its report dated 12.07.2012 and the then District Judge had rightly passed the order of regularization on 09.11.2012 granting regularization from 01.06.2012. We find that while considering the representation of some of the employees for promotion, the successor in the office of the District Judge could not have annulled the order of the regularization of the appellants which was done after following the proper procedure. The least that was required to be done was to follow the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. We find that the three orders passed by the District Judge dated 16.08.2014 also suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice."

6. Reverting to the facts of the case, in the

light of the principle law laid down by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar

2 (2006) 4 SCC

Mishra (supra) the impugned order (Annexure

P/2) dated 13.03.2008 is liable to be

dismissed and is hereby quashed. However the

respondents are at liberty to proceed in

accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is

allowed to the extent indicated herein­

above. No cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit