ORDER : 1. Since common question of fact and law are involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are decided by this common order. 2. The three petitioners herein were appointed to the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III, new Primary School, Surguja on 05.06.2006 (Annexure P/3), which was questioned by one Bridhichand Kujur in WPS No. 856/2008. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure P/11), directed the Collector, Surguja to examine the entire issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with rules. Meanwhile, after completion of the probation period, the services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 07.07.2010. However, vide order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P/4), the services of the petitioners were terminated and respondent No. 4 was directed to constitute an enquiry committee and to verify the credentials of each of the candidates. In compliance with the Collector’s order dated 28.11.2011, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5, terminated the services of the petitioners vide order dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the petitioners filed separate writ petitions before this Court, challenging their termination order dated 28.11.2011. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P/6) of this Court, the petitioners were directed to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the revisional or appellate authority. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 25.01.2012, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority/respondent No. 2 and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2013 (Annexure P/8), and the Collector was directed to constitute a new enquiry committee to investigate into the entire matter and to obtain a fresh enquiry report and on the basis of that report, to pass a fresh order in accordance with rules. 3. Meanwhile, the General Administrative Committee of Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution on 22.05.2012, holding that the employees working for more than five years will be confirmed in service. However, the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj/respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P/2), revoked the resolution passed by the General Administrative Committee on 15.05.2012 & 22.05.2012, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 85(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein after to be referred as the “Act of 1993” for brevity) and directed to proceed in accordance with law. Ultimately, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5 removed the petitioners from service vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P/1). Ultimately, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5 removed the petitioners from service vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P/1). Consequently, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning orders dated 30.07.2013 & 31.07.2014, assailing that the orders are contrary to the provisions contained in Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993. 4. Return has been filed by the State opposing the instant petition stating that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with law and therefore, their services have been terminated. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993, the Collector only has the power to suspend the resolution passed by any Committee constituted by Janpad Panchayat but he has no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution and that too without seeking confirmation by the Prescribed Authority. As such, the order in question is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Kavita Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2021) SCC Online CG 3036. 6. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with law and therefore, their services have rightly been terminated. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5 has only complied the order passed by the Collector. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 85 of the Act of 1993, which reads as under: “85. Power to suspend execution of orders: (1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein suspend the execution of any resolution passed, order issued, licence or permission granted or prohibit the performance of any act by a Panchayat, if in his opinion: (a) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorized. (b) such resolution, order licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or is contrary to any law. (b) such resolution, order licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or is contrary to any law. (c) the execution of such resolution or order, of the continuance in force of such licence or permission of the doing of such act is likely: (i) to cause loss, waste or misapplication of any money or damage to any property vested in the Panchayat. (ii) to be prejudicial to the public health, safety or convenience. (iii) to cause injury or annoyance to the public or any class or body of persons. (iv) to lead to a breach of peace. (2) Whenever an order is made by the prescribed authority under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith and in no case later than ten days from the date of order, forward to the State Government or the Officer nominated by the State Government for this purpose, copy of the order with the statement of reasons for making it, and, the State Government or the officer nominated by it may confirm, set aside, revise or modify the order or direct that it shall continue to be in force with or without modification permanently or for such period as may be deemed fit: Provided that no order of the prescribed authority passed under sub-section (1) shall be confirmed, set aside, revised or modified by the State Government or the officer nominated by it without giving the Panchayat concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed order.” 9. Firstly, sub-section (1) of Section 85 of the Act of 1993 provides power to the State Government or the prescribed authority who is empowered to suspend the execution of any resolution passed, order issued, licence or permission granted or prohibit the performance of any act by any Panchayat, by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, if in his opinion such resolution, order, license, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorized or such resolution, order licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or is contrary to any law or if its execution is likely to cause some loss or damage to any property vested in the Panchayat or is prejudicial to public health and safety or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or may lead to breach of peace. As such, by virtue of Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993, only the power to suspend the execution has been given to the prescribed authority (i.e. Collector in the present case). 10. Secondly, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Act of 1993, whenever an order is made by the prescribed authority under Section 85(1), it shall forthwith and in no case later than ten days from the date of order, forward to the State Government or the Officer nominated by the State Government copy of the order with the statement of reasons for making it and the State Government or the officer nominated therein has been empowered to confirm, set aside, revise or modify the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993. Whereas, proviso to Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993 provides for opportunity of hearing to Panchayat concerned against the proposed order and affected parties. 11. Thus, it is quite clear that under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993, the prescribed authority has the power to suspend the execution of an order finding it illegal and, thereafter, the prescribed authority is required to forward its order to the competent authority/State Government or the Officer nominated by the State Government within 10 days for the purpose of Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993 and by virtue of proviso to Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993, the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993 can be set aside, revised or modified by the State Government or the officer nominated by it only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Panchayat concerned including the person who is affected by the order of the prescribed authority. Any order passed by the State Government or the officer nominated by it for the purpose of Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993 without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned Panchayat or the person directly affected, would be without jurisdiction and without authority of law as proviso to Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993 is mandatory in character because under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993, the prescribed authority has only been given the power to suspend the execution of an order finding it illegal and unless the order of the prescribed authority is confirmed or modified by the State Government or the officer nominated by it under Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993, the order of the prescribed authority would not have any effect. Further, for the reason that the order passed under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993 has drastic consequences, therefore, it requires confirmation/rectification by the State Government or the officer nominated by it being the competent authority after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned Panchayat and the person affected by the order of the prescribed authority in terms of proviso to Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993. 12. However, Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993 only enables the State Government or the prescribed authority who by an order in writing and for the reasons to be stated therein suspend the execution of the resolution passed, order issued, license or permission granted or prohibit the performance of any Act by the Panchayat in its opinion is not in accordance with law. However, Section 85(1) nowhere authorizes the Collector to set aside the resolution passed by the Panchayat, as has been done in the instant case. If it is in excess of the powers conferred or contrary to law or being prejudicial to the public health and safety, then it has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 85(2) of the Act of 1993 and that authority would hear the affected party. As such, no power and jurisdiction has been conferred to the Collector to set aside the resolution of the Janpad Panchayat under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993. Consequently, the order passed by the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj is without jurisdiction and authority of law. 13. As such, no power and jurisdiction has been conferred to the Collector to set aside the resolution of the Janpad Panchayat under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993. Consequently, the order passed by the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj is without jurisdiction and authority of law. 13. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.07.2013 and also 31.07.2013 both are hereby set aside being without jurisdiction and authority of law. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits except back wages. However, the question of back wages will be considered by the competent authority as per law, after making due enquiry that whether the petitioners were gainfully employed during the interregnum period. 14. Resultantly, all three writ petitions are hereby allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No costs.