Manish Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

IA No.1, application for condondation of delay in filing the writ appeal, is considered and allowed. Delay of 464 days is condoned for the reason that the writ appeal arising out of the same order, by which WA No.168/2019 batch of writ petitions were dismissed, has already been allowed by this Court.

The writ appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No.448/2017 and other analogous cases, which was the case of Krishna Kumar Daharia vs State of Chhattisgarh and others.

In the matter of Krishna Kumar Daharia (supra), the following operative part of the order was passed:-

"15. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold the order of termination dated 16.06.2016 passed by the CMHO, Baloda Bazar as well as the order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding such decision of termination to be irrational and arbitrary and therefore, they deserve to be set aside and are set aside. It goes without saying that all these Appellants will be reinstated in their services forthwith.

The respondents, however, are given liberty that they will issue individual notices and hold enquiry in relation to the appointments on the post so made of all these terminated employees and this exercise cannot be a collective exercise because the authorities will have to identify as to which appointment was irregular and which appointment was illegal in the enquiry. In the departmental proceeding to be held and on the findings thereon, the law will take its course. The said enquiry will be concluded preferably within a period of six months.

Before disposing these appeals, the Court also directs all the appellants that on the notice so given to them by the Appointing Authority who is said to be CMHO, Baloda Bazar, they will co-operate in the enquiry and will not unnecessarily delay the same on one pretext or the other."

The present writ appeal is therefore allowed in the above stated terms.