Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Narendra Kumar Upadhyay on 13 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 102 of 2020
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources
Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Kota , District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Joint Director Pension And Accounts , Treasury Department ,
Bilaspur District Raipur , Chhattisgarh.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer Water Resources Department Kota,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
Narendra Kumar Upadhyay S/o Late Rajaram Upadhyay Aged About 66
Years R/o Village Kargikhurd , Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent : 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 24.10.2019
passed in WPS No. 8805 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 respondent/writ petitioner.
3. The writ petitioner had retired on 31.07.2016.
4. The writ petition was filed on 16.10.2019.
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
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 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
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.
7. An interim order was passed on 05.02.2020 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 a contingent employee.
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 petitioner 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 24.10.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge is set-aside and quashed.
12. It is more than six years since the writ petitioner has 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 petitioner, 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
