1 2026:CGHC:16875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6364 of 2021 Ashish Sao S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sao Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 5, Opposite Sumitra Dry Cleaners, Marbal Palace Raod, Ring Road No. 1, Laxmi Nagar, Raipur 492001. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Shed No. 3, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Madwa Tendubhatha, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) No.2 to 4 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 Annexure P/1. 10.3 That, the petitioner may be allowed to resume his services w.e.f. the date of appointment order alongwith all the consequential benefits of continuity of service, seniority and backwages. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land belonging to the family of petitioner was acquired by the respondents No.2 to 4, and an award was passed in the year 2007–08. He would further submit that in lieu of the land acquisition, an appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 03.10.2018 for the post of ‘Plant Attendant’. He would also submit that when the petitioner approached the respondent authorities to join his services, he was informed that the said appointment order has already been cancelled vide order dated 29.02.2021. He would contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the said order, further, the impugned order is a non-speaking order, as no reasons have been assigned; thus, the impugned order may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner had submitted a false affidavit to secure the appointment, therefore, after due scrutiny, 3 the appointment order was cancelled; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the family property of the petitioner was acquired by respondent No. 2 to 4. The petitioner was offered appointment on 03.10.2018, and when he approached the authorities to join his services, he was informed that the said appointment order has been recalled vide order dated 29.02.2020. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no reasons have been assigned therein. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that there is violation of the principles of natural justice, and the cancellation of the appointment order is a non-speaking order, the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. 9. The petitioner is directed to approach respondent No. 2 to 4 within a period of 45 days along with all relevant documents, thereafter, the competent authority shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner within a further period of 45 days, in accordance with law. 10.With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim