Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5881 of 2024 Sita Sahu W/o Shri Rup Narayan Sahu Aged About 42 Years Presentably Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Tarra, Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Presently Posting Place Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector 9, North Block, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Gariyaband District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 6. Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Ms. Shakainah Arthur, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Supriya Upasne, Advocate 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Rojgar Sahayak stating that her work is not satisfactory and up to the mark. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was holding the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis and thereafter her services were extended from time to time, however, all of a sudden by the order impugned the petitioner has been removed from the service and while passing the order, proper procedure has not been followed and even no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He would further submit that petitioner cannot be treated adversely without seeking her representation or explaining about her ACR’s which was not communicated to her, therefore the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order and would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rajgar Sahayak on contract basis and a contract employee has no right to continue in the service after completion of his/ her tenure. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the order impugned. 5. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner has been removed from the service on the ground that she is ineligible to continue working in the said post. 6. From perusal of the letter dated 27.09.2018, issued by the Commissioner MG NAREGA, it is evident that the said authority framed the guidelines with regard to the removal of Rojgar Sahayak. In the said memo, it has been mentioned that, if the work of the concerned Rojgar Sahayak is not found satisfactory, the CEO of the concerned Janpad Panchayat is required to conduct an enquiry in this regard and thereafter the same be forwarded to CEO, Zila Panchyat, who in turn is required to issue a notice to Rojgar Sahayak and after receipt of his/her response/ reply, if the CEO, Zila Panchayat finds him/her guilty, the matter be placed before the Programme Coordinator/ Collector and only after approval of the said authority, the Rojgar Sahayak can be removed from the service by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat. In the case at hand, the said procedure has not been followed and hence the impugned order is contrary to the letter dated 27.09.2018. 7. Referring to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v Union of India and Others1 , it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be 1. (2008) 8 SCC 725 4 treated adversely without seeking her representation or explanation about the ACR, which was not communicated to her, therefore, the order of discontinuation of employment is rendered in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. This court is convinced that the order of discontinuation of contract appointment of the petitioner deserves to be quashed for the reason that confidential report of the person, appointed on contract, shall be recorded so that his/her work may be assessed in case he/she is to be considered for appointment on contract basis for the next year and for such continuation the ACR/PAR should be 'excellent' or 'very good'. Once the Rule itself provides that the ACR or PAR would form the basis for according benefit of extension of contract employment, it goes without saying that a contract employee has a right to represent against the ACR which may work adverse to his/her interest if the same is not of required standard. Even if contract employee is not entitled to hold the post, if the Rules itself provide for consideration of ACR or PAR as a measure to assess the suitability, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) would apply with full force for the reason that if an employee is entitled for any benefit out of the ACR or PAR, the same has to be communicated without which it cannot be considered against the employee. 9. It is is also to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has settled, in 'n' number of cases that when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, 5 the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. (See: State of Maharashtra v Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others2). 10. A contract employee or for that matter any public servant may not have the right of prior opportunity of hearing before writing of ACR, but once it is considered for giving or for not giving any benefit the same has to be communicated to the person before taking any decision qua the benefit which may be bestowed to the contract employee on the basis of such ACR. 11. For the reason stated herein above, I am inclined to allow this petition and the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 is hereby quashed. 12. The competent authority shall now provide the petitioner an opportunity to represent against the ACR/PAR and based on the decision on the petitioner’s representation, the competent authority shall consider the issue afresh concerning continuation of contract employment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. It is made clear that there shall be no order as to the back wages.
Decision
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. $. Bhilwar 2 (2007) 3 SCC 587 Sd/-/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE