PARIKSHIT DAS Vs. RAIPUR DISTT., FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Fisherman by the respondents No.1 and 2, temporarily, vide order dated 26.7.1975 (Annexure P/2). It appears that the petitioner was thereafter appointed on the post of Attendant. While working as Attendant the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. (Lower Division Clerk), temporarily, on the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420, vide order dated 22.11.1989 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner continued on the post of L.D.C. till 28th February, 1995, when he was reverted to the post of Peon (Attendant) vide order dated 28.2.1995 (Annexure P/4).

(2.) Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.2.1995 visits with civil consequences and since the same was passed without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order deserves to be quashed on the simple ground that the order is vitiated on account. of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. It is further contended that under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary & Quasi- Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules, I960'), which has been adapted by the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner had acquired the quasi permanent status in service under Rule 3 A on having completed five years' temporary service on the post of L.D.C. The service of the petitioner could not have been terminated on any other ground, except, by strictly following the principles of natural justice and fair play in action.

(3.) Despite several notices to the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Raipur District Fish Farmer's Development Agency, Raipur and Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, District Fish Farmers Agency, Raipur, none appeared on their behalf. However, the reply on their behalf was filed on 12.5.1995. In the reply the plea of the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that there should be a clear declaration of quasi permanent status under Rule 3 and 3 A of the Rules, 1960. It is admitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the said Rules are applicable, as it if not the case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the said Rules are not applicable to the petitioner. It was further stated in the written submissions that since there was no vacancy on the post of L.D.C. the services of the petitioner was reverted to the lower post. Shri V V.S. Moorthy, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Shri I.N. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 submits that this case has to be contested by the respondents No. 1 and 2 as the State i.e. Respondents No.3 and 4 have no interest in the case and there is no grievance of the petitioner against the respondents No. 6. and 4.