State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chandrashekhar Pandey
2023 Latest Caselaw 258 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                             NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             WA No. 164 of 2020

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources
     Department,       Mahanadi       Bhawan,         Atal    Nagar,     Raipur
     Chhattisgarh..............Respondent, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................Respondent

3. The Joint Director, Pension And Accounts, Treasury, Department, Bilaspur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned)................Respondent

---- Appellants Versus

1. Chandrashekhar Pandey S/o Firtu Prasad Pandey, Aged About 65 Years R/o Kota, Tahsil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..............Petitioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chandrakant Sharma S/o Firtu Prasad, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Hardi, Tahsil Pathariya, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...........Petitioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Rajaram Kashyap, S/o Late Hariram Kashyap, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Chulghat, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............Petitioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Govind Prasad Kaushik, S/o Late Ramlochan Kaushik, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Dhandhan, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............Petitioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Ramkhilawan Rajak, S/o Ghanram Rajak, Aged About 65 Years Retired Sthal Sahayak, R/o Village Padariya, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................Petitioner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General.

For Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge

Judgment on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

13.01.2023

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 14.11.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9248 of 2019, allowing the

writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing

for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel,

appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners.

3. The writ petitioner No. 1 had retired on 31.03.2016, petitioner No. 2

had retired on 30.06.2018, petitioner No. 3 had retired on 30.11.2017,

petitioner No. 4 had retired on 30.06.2018 and the petitioner No. 5 had

retired on 31.08.2016.

4. The writ petition was filed on 21.10.2019.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Pali that on the first date of listing of the case,

the writ petition was allowed, directing counting of service rendered by the

petitioners as daily wager prior to their regularization for retiral dues. It is

submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge in the

case of Mubin Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WA No. 88 of

2019), which was decided on 01.04.2019 and the decision in the case of

Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others, reported in (2003) 4

MPLJ 376, are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

case. He submits that because of violation of principles of natural justice

alone, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside.

6. Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the

respondents / writ petitioners supports the order of the learned Single

Judge. However, he does not dispute the fact that the writ petition was

disposed of on the first day itself.

7. An interim order was passed on 10.02.2020 staying the order of the

learned Single Judge so far as it related to the direction to count the service

prior to the date of coming into service as contingent employees.

8. On a query of the Court, Mr. Kesharwani submits that if the direction

of the learned Single Judge is set-aside, the amount payable as pension to

the writ petitioners will come down.

9. In the case of Johra & Others v. State of Haryana & Others,

reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324, at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, it is stated as

follows:

"6. We may reiterate the basic fundamental principle of

law that no order can be passed by any court in any

judicial proceedings against any party to such

proceedings without hearing and giving such party an

opportunity of hearing.

7. Principle of natural justice demands that the party

to the proceedings must be heard by the Court before

passing any order in relation to the subject-matter of such

proceedings (see observations of an eminent Judge -

Vivian Bose in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR

1955 SC 425).

8. The fact that a person is made a party to the

judicial proceedings in relation to a certain dispute has a

legitimate right to raise an objection and before passing

any order in such proceedings, he should be least heard

and his views/stand in relation to the subject-matter of the

proceedings be taken into consideration. The Court is

duty-bound to hear all such person(s) by giving them an

opportunity to place their stand."

10. Though, the order recites that the learned State counsel was heard,

we are of the opinion that such hearing was an empty formality as no

proper opportunity was granted to the State to place its case and as such,

the same militates against the principles of natural justice.

11. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be

sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned

Single Judge is set-aside and quashed.

12. A number of years had passed by since the writ petitioners had

retired, and therefore, an early resolution is called for. Therefore, the

appellants are permitted to file their response to the writ petition within a

period of three weeks from today. No further time shall be granted for filing

of reply and in the event of not filing any reply within the period of three

weeks as directed by this order, the writ petition will be disposed of on the

basis of materials available on record. In case, any reply is filed, the writ

petitioners, if so advised, may file rejoinder-affidavit within a period of

further two weeks.

13. Registry is directed to list this case on 01.03.2023 before the

appropriate Single Bench having roster as a fresh case.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

Single Judge is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the case as

expeditiously as possible.

15. The writ appeal is allowed with the above observations and

directions.

                     Sd/-                                       Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                       (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                 Chief Justice                                 Judge

Hem