1 2025:CGHC:5885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7686 of 2024 • Chandrakanta Manikpuri D/o Manikdas Manikpuri Aged About 47 Years R/o Gram- Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Durg, Range- Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat- Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to call for the entire records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure P- 1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner at her previous post. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts have been taken into consideration for disposing of this petition is WP(S) 5954/2023 in case of Saurabh Tembukar. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon in the office of Janpad Panchayat Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), thereafter, the General Administration Committee of the Janpad Panchayat Bodla vide its resolution dated 24.07.2020 has decided to regularize the petitioner against the vacant post. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the Collector, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), who vide order dated 19.08.2021 has not only cancelled the regularization order 3 of the petitioner, but has also quashed the order of appointment of the petitioner as daily wages employee. 4. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Durg which was rejected on 15.02.2022. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development and the Secretary has also rejected the same vide order dated 14.03.2023. Being aggrieved with this order, petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so called inquiry initiated by the Collector is behind her back and no opportunity of hearing was given to her, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law and he would further submit that the authorities right from the Commissioner and the Secretary have not considered the vital point which was agitated before them regarding flagrant violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, he would submit that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside. He would refer to the Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 and would submit that the appointment to the service after commencement of the Rules of 1999 shall be made by the appointing authority as shown in the 4 Schedule 5 and no such appointment shall be made after selection by one of the methods of recruitment specified in Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 and would submit that since the sanction has been obtained by the Panchayat, therefore, it is irregularity which can be cured subsequently and he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are well within their jurisdiction and as per the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 it is incumbent upon them to take prior permission before regularizing the service of a Panchayat Karmi which has not been done and acted unfairly without following the constitutional scheme for appointment. Thus, the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Secretary and the action taken by the Collector cannot be found faulty and would pray for rejected of the writ petition. He would further submit that the Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999 also provided that the method of recruitment specified in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 has to be followed and in the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, there is no such provision for appointment by regularization or absorption of a daily wages employee, therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the Panchayat is illegal and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 5 8. When this Court has put a specific query whether any power has been provided under the rules for regularization, she has referred to the Rules 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Condition of Service) Rules, 1999. But, from bare perusal of the Rule 7, it is quite vivid that no such mode of appointment has been provided for regularization of a daily wages employee and when there is no provision or rules for regularization the Panchayat suo moto cannot regularize any daily wages employee. 9. From the above discussion, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wages employees and she has been regularized on 24.07.2020, but the regularization was neither done with the approval of the Collector nor prescribed in the mode of appointment as provided in the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. Thus, so far as the cancellation of the regularization cannot be found faulty which warrants interference, but the Collector has committed illegality even canceling the appointment of the petitioner as daily wages employee and all the authorities Commissioner and the Secretary have not looked this vital aspect of the matter which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Secretary to the extent that the petitioner appointed as daily wages employees 6 is quashed/set aside, but so far as cancellation of the regularization order which has been affirmed by the Commissioner and then the Secretary cannot be found faulty which warrants interference and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on daily wages as she was employed prior to regularization. It is also directed that the petitioner is not entitled to get any back wages for the period when s h e w a s out of service. 10. From the record it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wages employees and she has been subsequently regularized on 09.07.2020 in view of the proposal made by the Panchayat and the complaint was made with regard to her regularization, therefore, the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction even canceling her appointment as daily wages employees. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed in part by directing the respondents No. 4 and 5 to appoint the petitioner as daily wages employees. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat