1 2025:CGHC:295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 291 of 2024 1. Lochan Singh Bhardwaj S/o Bhudheswar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jampali, Po Nandaur Khurd, District Shakti Chhattisgarh. 2. Purtibai Sidar W/o Laluram Sidar Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Achanakpur, Po - Nandaur Khurd, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3. Tuleshwar Singh Sidar S/o Santram Sidar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Tenduldih, Tehsil Jaijeypur, District Shakti Chhattisgarh. 4. Sukhsagar Diwaker S/o Late Dilharan Diwaker Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sundereli, Tehsil Baradwar, District Shakti Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Review Petitioners : Mr. H. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03 .01.2025 1. The review petitioners have preferred this review petition praying for review/modification of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 447 of 2024 dated 19.11.2024. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners preferred WPS No. 447 of 2024 along with other connected matters and they were disposed of vide common order dated 19.11.2024. He further submits that the writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 13.06.2023 whereby the State Government had directed the Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development to immediately cancel the order thereby granting the revised regular pay-scale to Class-IV employees working under the work-charged and contingency paid fund and also to cancel the appointment order issued in their favor. He contends that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court also while deciding a similar issue in the matter of Maheshwar Dhruv Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. vide order dated 29.09.2021 had also set-aside the impugned order. He further contends that this Court while hearing WPS No. 447 of 2024 earlier had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 13.06.2023 but when the matter was heard finally, due to inadvertence, the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 has not been set aside which would stand against the review petitioners and the order passed by this Court dated 19.11.2024 would serve no fruitful purpose in filing the representations before the respondent authorities. He argues that if their appointments and the benefit of revised pay scales granted to them are cancelled, it would affect their careers and livelihoods as they are low-salaried employees entirely dependent on their income. It is submitted that there has been no misrepresentation or foul play on the part of the petitioners and without affording the opportunity of hearing the order dated 13.06.2023 has been passed. At this stage, he prays to modify the order dated 19.11.2024 up to the extent that the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to issue a fresh order after providing due 3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by Mr. Ahluwalia. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Mishra & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 648 has held that even before cancellation of regularization, the opportunity of hearing is necessary. Paragraph 17 of the judgment reads as under:- “17. As such, apart from the Circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, dated 05.11.2009, the appellants' cases were also required to be taken into consideration in view of the exception carved out in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. We find that the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional District Judge had rightly submitted its report dated 12.07.2012 and the then District Judge had rightly passed the order of regularization on 09.11.2012 granting regularization from 01.06.2012. We find that while considering the representation of some of the employees for promotion, the successor in the office of the District Judge could not have annulled the order of the regularization of the appellants which was done after following the proper procedure. The least that was required to be done was to follow the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. We find that the three orders passed by the District Judge dated 16.08.2014 also suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice.” 6. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar (supra), it is quite apparent that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Class-IV (daily rated employees) vide orders dated 17.06.2015, 30.11.2015 and 30.07.2016, their services were regularized, later on, the order dated 4 13.06.2023 was passed without affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice but due to inadvertence, the same was not mentioned in the order dated 19.11.2024. 7. Upon a perusal of the order dated 19.11.2024, paras 5 and 6 shall be replaced by the following:- PARA 5: “Taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned was passed by the respondent authorities without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order dated 13.06.2023 is hereby set- aside. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. However, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to issue fresh order(s) only after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/affected persons.” 8. Accordingly, the instant review petition is allowed and the direction issued in the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 447 of 2024 is modified. 9. The aforementioned modifications shall be a part of the original order and paras 5 and 6 shall stand replaced accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Ajinkya