Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajesh Kumar Agrawal on 13 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 321 of 2020
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Under Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi
Godawari Basin, Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
5. The Executive Engineer, Water Management, Division No. 2, Baloda
Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.
6. The Joint Director, Pension And Accounts, Treasury, Department,
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7. The Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi
Godawari Basin, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt. U.N. Agarwal, Aged About 59 Years Working
On The Post of Assistant Grade 3, Office Of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi
Project, Water Resource Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, 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 11.02.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 884 of 2019, allowing the
writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing
for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.
3. 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
petitioner as daily wager prior to his regularization for retiral dues. It is
submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge in the
case of Lakhanram Sahu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and
Others (WA No. 281 of 2013) which was decided on 26.02.2015 is not at
all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further
submitted that there is no circular No. 08 of 2018 dated 28.02.2018 as
noted by the learned Single Judge in the record of the writ petition. 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.
4. In the petition, date of superannuation is not mentioned.
5. Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondent / writ petitioner 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.
6. On a query of the Court, Mr. Sharma submits that if the direction of
the learned Single Judge is set-aside, the amount payable as pension to
the writ petitioner will come down.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned
Single Judge is set-aside and quashed.
10. Since the writ petitioner has retired, 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 petitioner, if so advised, may file rejoinder-affidavit within a
period of further two weeks.
11. Registry is directed to list this case on 01.03.2023 before the
appropriate Single Bench having roster as a fresh case.
12. 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.
13. The writ appeal is allowed with the above observations and
directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
