AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Agnihotri, J.
The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 1.4.1995 (Annexure-C), passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the regularization granted earlier to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the order was passed by the then Joint Director Panchayat & Social Service, Bilaspur Division, after his retirement on 31st January, 1993 and the memo dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure-D) sent to the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Panchayt & Social Service, Surguja,
The indisputable facts, in brief, are that being aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner preferred an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, as it was then in existence. The State Administrative Tribunal by order dated 8.8.1995 issued notice on dissolution of the State administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. (S) No. 1147/2005. the matter came up before this Court for hearing on 11.11.2009 on the request of the parties the matter was adjourned for a week. Thereafter, on 17.11.2009 two weeks time as prayed by the State counsel was granted to produce the original order Despite sufficient opportunities, granted to the State/respondents, they have failed to file the original documents.
Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order regularizing the services of the petitioner was passed on 30.1.1993 (Annexure-B), however, as is evident from the second page of the order, copy of the same was endorsed to other officers on 2.2.1993. Thus, the reasons given by the respondents that the order was passed by the officer after his retirement is without any basis.
Shri N.N. Roy, learned panel lawyer, appearing for the respondents/ State, on the other hand, submits that the order was passed on 2.2.1993 and the officer, who passed the order, had already retired on 31.1.1993. thus, the order was without jurisdiction, accordingly the impugned order was passed.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, it is evident from the dates mentioned in the order of regularization (Annexure-B) that the Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Service, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur had signed the order on 30.1.1993 and the endorsement to other concerned officers was made on 2.2.1993, as is the usual practice that after passing of the order the endorsement takes some time for two - three days. Thus, the contention of the respondents/State that the order was passed by the officer after his retirement is noticed to be rejected. Even otherwise, despite opportunities granted to the respondents/State, they have not produced any document in support of their contention for more than 14 years.
On perusal of the documents it is clear that the impugned order dated 1.4.1995 (Annexure - C) and memo dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure - D) are passed on the wrong facts that the regularization order was passed on 2.2.1993, which is contrary to the record, Thus, the same deserves to be quashed.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.1995 (Annexure - C) and memo dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure - D) are quashed. In the facts of the case, no order as to casts.