High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 07 CHH CK 0085

Prem Narayan Sengar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 27 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 6423 Of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 343 words
1.

Proceedings of this matter have been takenÂ​up through video conferencing.

2.

The short grievance raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Assistant Director, Agriculture from the post of

Deputy Director, Agriculture by order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure PÂ​1) contrary to law and without giving an opportunity of hearing to him.

3.

Mr.Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that along with the petitioner one more Deputy Director namely, Rajkumar

Gonekar was reverted which he filed writ petition being WPS No.4699 of 2010 (Rajkumar Gonekar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), which has

been decided on 12.9.2017 and that writ petition has been allowed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as such, the present writ

petition may also be allowed in terms of parasÂ​3 and 4 of the order passed in Rajkumar Gonekar (supra).

4.

On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, would submit that identical writ petition has

allowed in the matter of Rajkumar Gonekar (supra).

5.

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

circumspection.

6.

This Court in the matter of Rajkumar Gonekar (supra) held as under:Â​

“3. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, though

with liberty to respondent to afford opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order.

4.

The petitioner for all legal and practical purposes shall be treated as having continued on the post of Dy.Director.â€​

7.

In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of parasÂ3 and 4 of the order passed in Rajkumar Gonekar (supra) and the

impugned order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent authority to pass afresh order after

hearing the petitioner in terms of order passed in Rajkumar Gonekar (supra). No cost(s).