1 2025:CGHC:30892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7927 of 2018 1 - Shyam Sundar Tekam S/o Jantram Tekam, Aged About 43 Years Working As Peon, Per Metric, Boys Hostel, Tivarata, Block Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Post, Chaitma, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Adim Jati Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Department) Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Treasury Officer, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by quashing order Annexure P/5 & P/7 holding them to be illegal and without authority by restoring the position prior to 11.07.2018 is relation to the service condition of the petitioner and also to restore Annexure P/3, order dated 15.07.2010 by returning the amount of recovered amount to the petitioner with interest. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.09 15:05:35 +0530 2 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded. 2. Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that initially the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar being a member of scheduled tribe category on collectorate rate for 89 days vide order dated 06.01.2000 issued by respondent No. 4. She would contend that the order of pay fixation was passed by respondent No. 4 on 15.07.2010 and he was granted pay scale of Rs. 4750-7440+1300. She would submit that a show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 4 dated 22.06.2018 and later on the order of absorption and fixation of salary was withdrawn by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 11.07.2018. She would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded, no enquiry was conducted and after long 08 years, the decision was taken. She would further submit that the petitioner is still in service. She would pray to quash that order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would submit that an objection was raised by the Joint Director Treasury Account and Pension, Bilaspur and thereafter an enquiry was conducted. He would submit that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2018 and thereafter 03 Members Committee conducted enquiry and took decision. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were wrongly regularised and, therefore, same was withdrawn by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 11.07.2018. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that initially the petitioner was appointed with the respondents as daily rated employee on collectorate rate and later on a specific order was issued by respondent No. 4 and services of the petitioner were regularised vide order dated 15.07.2010. The petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs.4750- 7440+1300. It further appears that only a show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 4 on 22.06.2018, whereas no opportunity of hearing was afforded while conducting an enquiry against the petitioner. As the services of the petitioner were regularised, a right was accrued in his favour and order impugned which was passed by respondent No. 4 without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and same is arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order dated 11.07.2018 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for salary / difference of salary from 11.07.2018. 6. The respondents would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry and may take decision strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti