Gourishankar Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Proceedings of these matters have been takenÂ​up through video conferencing.

Since common question of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this

common order.

Mr.Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that order of termination dated 14.6.10 (Annexure PÂ1) in WPS No.3500/2010

and dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) in WPS No.7343/2010 have been passed against the petitioners by respondent No.2 without affording an

opportunity of hearing holding them to be musterÂroll employees, whereas they were not musterÂroll employees. He would further submit that

petitioner No.1 was appointed on 6.5.2001 and petitioner No.2 was appointed on 26.2.2005 in WPS No.3500/2010 and the petitioner was appointed on

28.8.2008 in WPS No.7343/2010 though on temporary basis, but they have been held to be musterÂroll employees, whereas they were not musterÂ‐

roll employees and as such, the impugned orders deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State, would submit that it is respondent No.2 who has passed the

impugned orders.

None present for respondent No.2, though served.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

It appears from the record that though the petitioners were working pursuant to their appointment orders (Annexure PÂ2) in both writ petitions, but

it has not been mentioned that they are musterÂroll employees and the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners.

Once the petitioners were appointed and working for a fairly long time and they are not shown to be muster roll employees, they ought to have

been heard by respondent No.2.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.6.10 (Annexure PÂ1) in WPS No.3500/2010 and the impugned order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure PÂ1)

in WPS No.7343/2010 both are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 who will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).