Maheshwar Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2620 Chatt

                            1

                                                    NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   WPS No.700 of 2014

      Maheshwar Dhruv, S/o Shri Tula Ram Dhruv, Aged
       About 27 Years, Occupation Peon, Vivekanand
       Vidyapeeth, Permanent R/o Ghatkara Post Pond
       Paduka, PS Rajim Tah Chura, Distt Gariyaband,
       At Present Vivekanand Vidyapeeth, Post Raipur,
       PS And Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                        ­­­­ Petitioner

                         Versus

     1. State   Of   Chhattisgarh   Through   Principal
        Secretary,   Department   Of   Tribal   Welfare
        (Schedule    Caste    And    Schedule    Tribe)
        Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, PS
        Abhanpur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare (Schedule Caste
        And Schedule Tribe), C.G., Raipur, Distt
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. Collector, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Secretary,   Vivekanand    Vidyapeeth,    Kota,
        Raipur, PS And Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                        ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent­State Mr. Shakti Singh, PL For Respondent No.4 Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

29/09/2021

1. Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that the petitioner

was regularized on the post of Peon vide order

dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure­P/7) passed by the

respondent No.4, but by order dated 11.12.2013

(Annexure­P/1) passed by the respondent No.4

itself, the petitioner's order of

regularization has been revoked without

affording any opportunity of hearing and

without giving any show cause notice to the

petitioner, which is in violation of principle

of natural justice, therefore, the impugned

order is liable to set aside.

2. Mr. Shakti Singh, learned State counsel, and

Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel for the

respondent No.4, would support the impugned

order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made

herein­above and went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

4. True it is that petitioner was regularized on

the post of Peon by order dated 04.12.2012

(Annexure­P/7) passed by the respondent No.4,

but subsequently the same has been revoked by

order dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure­P/1) passed

by the respondent No.4 itself without

affording any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, which is in violation of principle

of natural justice.

5. 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 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 1 (2019) 17 SCC 648 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1

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 light of

the principle laid down by the Supreme Court

in the matter of Rajnish Kumar (supra), it is

quite apparent that the petitioner's services

were regularized on the post of Peon by order

dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure­P/7) passed by the

respondent No.4, but vide order dated

11.12.2013 (Annexure­P/1) passed by the

respondent No.4 itself, the order of

regularization has been revoked, which ought

not to have been done without affording a

minimum opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is

in violation of principle of natural justice

and in the teeth of the decision rendered by

the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish

Kumar (supra). Accordingly, the impugned

order dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure­P/1) is

hereby set aside. However, the respondents are

at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

7. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to

cost (s).

Sd/-

Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala