1 Imran Khan S/o Mohd. Ahafaz Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No v. 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi
Case Details
JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.29 10:59:25 +0530 Page 1 of 6 2025:CGHC:19025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2877 of 2025 1 Imran Khan S/o Mohd. Ahafaz Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Bodla, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Ngar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 The Commissioner Durg Region, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 The Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bodla District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice BIBU DATTA GURU Order on Board 28.04.2024 Page 2 of 6 1. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the office of Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), thereafter, the General Administration Committee of the Janpad Panchayat Bodla vide its resolution dated 21.07.2020 has decided to regularize the petitioner against the vacant post. Thereafter a complaint was made to the Collector, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), who vide order dated 19.08.2021 has not only cancelled the regularization order of the petitioner, but has also quashed the order of appointment of the petitioner as daily wages employee. 2. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Durg which was rejected on 15.02.2022. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development and the Secretary has also rejected the same vide order dated 14.03.2023. Being aggrieved with these orders, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so Page 3 of 6 called inquiry initiated by the Collector is behind his back and no opportunity of hearing was given to him, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and he would further submit that the authorities right from the Commissioner and the Secretary have not considered the vital point which was agitated before them regarding flagrant violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, he would submit that
Decision
the writ petition be kindly allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. He would refer to the Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 and would submit that the appointment to the service after commencement of the Rules of 1999 shall be made by the appointing authority as shown in the Schedule 5 and no such appointment shall be made after selection by one of the methods of recruitment specified in Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 and would submit that since the sanction has been obtained by the Panchayat, therefore, it is irregularity which can be cured subsequently and he would pray for allowing the writ petitions. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are well within their jurisdiction and as per the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 it is incumbent upon them to take prior permission before regularizing the service of a Panchayat Karmi which has Page 4 of 6 not been done and acted unfairly without following the constitutional scheme for appointment. Thus, the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Secretary and the action taken by the Collector cannot be found faulty and would pray for rejected of the writ petitions. He would further submit that the Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999 also provided that the method of recruitment specified in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has to be followed and in the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, there is no such provision for appointment by regularization or absorption of a daily wages employee, therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the Panchayat is illegal and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. When this Court has put a specific query whether any power has been provided under the rules for regularization, he has referred to the Rules 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Condition of Service) Rules, 1999. But, from bare perusal of the Rule 7, it is quite vivid that no such mode of appointment has been provided for regularization of a daily wages employee and when there is no provision or rules for regularization the Panchayat suo moto cannot regularize any daily wages Page 5 of 6 employee. 7. From the above discussion, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wages employees and they he been regularized on 21.07.2020, but the regularization was neither done with the approval of the Collector nor prescribed in the mode of appointment as provided in the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. Thus, so far as the cancellation of the regularization cannot be found faulty which warrants interference, but the Collector has committed illegality even canceling the appointment of the petitioners as daily wages employee and all the authorities Commissioner and the Secretary have not looked this vital aspect of the matter which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in part and the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Secretary to the extent that the petitioners appointed as daily wages employees are quashed/set aside, but so far as cancellation of the regularization order which has been affirmed by the Commissioner and then the Secretary cannot be found faulty which warrants interference and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on daily wages as he was employed prior to regularization. It is also directed that the petitioner is not entitled to get any back wages for Page 6 of 6 the period when they were out of service. 8. From the record it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employees and he has been subsequently regularized on 09.07.2020 in view of the proposal made by the Panchayat and the complaint was made with regard to their regularization, therefore, the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction even the canceling the appointment as daily wage employee. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petition is allowed in part by directing the respondent No. 4 and 5 to appoint the petitioner as daily wages employees. Jyoti Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) Judge