Jeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 13898 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110612




CWP-24446-2017 (O&M)                    -1-             2023:PHHC:110612

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

227                                              CWP-24446-2017 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 23.08.2023


Jeet Singh and others                                       .... Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Punjab and others                                  .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA


Present:     Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

                                     *****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL)

1. Both the learned counsels are ad idem that the impugned order

dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P-13) stands governed by the law as laid down

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-21790-2014, dated

14.02.2017, wherein, this Court has held that the opportunity of hearing

provided cannot substitute the process of issuing show cause notice and

giving the opportunity to the petitioners to submit their defence. The

Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:-

"As per learned senior counsel, the requirement of issuance of show cause notice and consideration of reply is a much more effective feature as compared to a simple personal hearing especially to a person who may not be aware about the niceties of law. As per him, personal hearing cannot be substituted for a proper show cause notice to which reply may also be given by the petitioners. More so since in the previous petition, there was a specific direction to this effect.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110612

CWP-24446-2017 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:110612

Learned State counsel on the other hand would try to justify that hearing is an effective substitute of a regular show cause notice and reply I regret my inability to agree with the learned State counsel.

In these circumstances, I have no option but to set aside the order (Annexure P-5) and grant one more opportunity to the respondents to pass fresh order after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner."

2. Admittedly, after first round of litigation where this Court set

aside the order passed by the respondents, whereby, the date of

regularization was changed from 01.08.1985 to 09.02.2012, the order dated

04.03.2016 having been set aside. The respondents called the petitioners for

hearing and thereafter, again reiterated his earlier order dated 04.03.2016

holding the petitioners to be regularized from 09.02.2012.

3. Keeping in view the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

dated 14.02.2017 (supra), the present petition is allowed to the aforesaid

extent and the order of regularizing the services w.e.f. 09.02.2012 dated

10.10.2017 is quashed and set aside with further opportunity to the

respondents to pass fresh order after giving the show cause notice to each of

the petitioner. The petitioners would be free to submit their reply and orders

shall be passed within a period of six months thereafter. Further grievances

of the petitioners may be addressed by the State Government accordingly.

4. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

                                            (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
23.08.2023                                           JUDGE
D.Bansal

               Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
               Whether reportable        :        Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:110612

                                        2 of 2