1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3430 of 2021 1 - Heera Singh Soni S/o Late Goverdhan Soni Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As Peon At Government Higher Secondary School, Karitgaon, Block Bakawand, District Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Education, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Karitgaon, Block Bakawand, District Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Diwakar on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State / Respondent(s) : Mr. T. L. Bareth, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 2 03/03/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to case of petitioner from kind perusal from the respondent authorities. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing appropriate writ set-aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1). 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide all service benefits to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 25.10.1996 with the respondents and he worked as such for quite sometime. However, his services were discontinued from 1998 to 2000. Subsequently, by another order dated 29.12.2000 the petitioner was appointed on the same post and continuously worked thereafter. However, as he fell ill in the year 2003, he remained on medical leave and having availed that he joined his duties on 24.05.2010. Since the petitioner’s performance was to the utmost satisfaction of the authority, his services were regularized on 31.05.2014, and he was absorbed in the establishment of work charged employee on the pay scale of 4750 – 7004 and grade pay of Rs. 1300/-. However, all of a sudden the impugned orders dated 17.06.2021 came to be passed canceling their own regularization order. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order impugned canceling the regularization of the petitioner is patently illegal and has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. He submits that it is a settled position of law that in the cases of like nature, 3 the principal of nature justice has to be complied with, but the same has not been done in the case in hand. The respondents are stated to have ignored the fact that the petitioner had entered into the service of the respondents establishment in the year 1996 and all of a sudden have passed the order of cancellation of his regularization, though his performance was always satisfactory. To buttress his submissions he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690 in paragraphs 14 & 19 and in another judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 1525/2023 (Jeevan Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) dated 04.11.2025 in paragraphs No.9. Thus, he submits that impugned order may be set-aside. 4. Learned State counsel on the other hand supports the order impugned and submits that looking to the nature of employment, which was on daily wages, the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference in this petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the documents on record it is apparent that initially the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis by order dated 25.10.1996 for a period of 89 days. However, his services were discontinued from 1998 to the year 2000. Again by order dated 29.12.2000 he was appointed on the said post and he continued as such. In the year 2003 on account of his illness he remained on medical leave and resumed his duties on 24.05.2010. Subsequently by order dated 31.05.2014 his services were found to be satisfactory and regularized as such. He was even absorbed in the establishment of work charged and contingent employee. It is pertinent to note here that during this long period the petitioner worked with the establishment of respondents, no adversity or complaint of any kind came to the fore, and probably for this reason his regularization order came to be 4 passed. It however, came to be canceled all of a sudden by the order impugned without assigning any cogent reasons and also without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This abrupt approach of the respondent in canceling the regularization ignoring the fact that the petitioner had entered in service of the respondents, may be on daily wage basis, in the year 1996. Dealing with the issue involving the consequences of civil nature, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Singh (supra) in paragraph 9, 14, 19 has held as under : “9.The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. 14.Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where b there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person. 19.The Division Bench of the Court does not dispute the fact of passing of the impugned order without 5 hearing the appellant, but condones the procedural irregularity by bringing it under the "doctrine of futile exercise". According to the Court, even if an opportunity of showing cause was afforded to the appellant, it would not have made any difference. 7. This Court in case of Jeevan Lal Verma (supra) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held in paragraph 9 as under:- 9. From the perusal of record as also the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a well settled principle of law that before passing any order which entails civil consequences, the person concerned must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, since the petitioner has been demoted without being given any such opportunity, the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice.” 8. Having thus seen the aforesaid factual position in the light of parameters prescribed by the Supreme Court and followed by this Court in the cases referred to above, this court is of the considered opinion that the cancellation of regularization of the petitioner is dehors the settled legal position that none should be condemned unheard, and before passing an order involving the implications of civil nature, opportunity of hearing is a rational approach which has to be adhere to by the authority concerned. Being this, the order impugned is hereby set aside. 9. Petition is thus allowed with the aforesaid observations. It would however, be open for the respondents to initiate to proceedings against the petitioner if occasion arises but confining themselves within the confines of law and providing an opportunity of hearing to him. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan