High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 / 8 2025:CGHC:15789 NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.08 12:56:57 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5871 of 2024 1 Hemda Ram Aande S/o Late Khorbahara Ram, Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat-Loharshi, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) (Note - Present 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 (C.G.) 2 Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector-9, North Block , Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 Collector, Gariyaband, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District- Gariyband (C.G.) 5 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 / 8 6 Programme Officer, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Fingeshwar, District-Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5896 of 2024 1 Rajendra Kumar Dhruw S/o Late Indarman Dhruw Aged About 50 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat Raksha, Janpat Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector 9, North Block, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 Chief Executive Officer - Zilla Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 3 / 8 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5740 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 Jyoti Dhruv Shri Homan Lal Jyoti Dhruv Aged About 31 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat Parsada Joshi Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyabandd Chhattisgarh ---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 Guaranter 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 Zila Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 4 / 8 WPS No. 5880 of 2024 1 Dudhnath Dhidhi S/o Late Roop Chand Dhidhi Aged About 36 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat - Kumhi Janpad Panchyat Fingeshwar District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Capital Complex Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Vikas Bhawan Third Floor Sector 9, North Block Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distrct - Raipur (C.G.) 3 Collector Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 Chief Executive Officer - Janpad Panchyat Fingeshwar , District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project Janpad Fingeshwar District - Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents/ State For Respondent No. 4 to 6 : Ms. Priyanka Rai on behalf of Ms. Supriya : Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, G.A. Upasane, Advocate 5 / 8 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 03/04/2025 1. Since common facts and grounds are involved in all these petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No. 5871 of 2024 are being referred. 2. The challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Rojgar Sahayak stating that their work is not satisfactory and up to the mark. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were holding the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contract basis and thereafter there services were extended from time to time, however, all of a sudden by the order impugned the petitioners have been removed from their services and while passing the order proper procedure has not been followed and even no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners cannot be treated adversely without seeking their representation or explaining about their ACR’s which was not communicated to them, therefore the order impugned is in violation of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order and would submit that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Rajgar Sahayak on contract basis and 6 / 8 the contract employees has no right to continue in the services after completion of their tenure. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the order impugned. 6. From the perusal of the order, it is apparent that the petitioners have been removed from the services on the ground that they are ineligible to continue in the post. 7. 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 response/ reply, if the CEO, Zila Panchayat found him 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, in hand, the said procedure has not been followed and hence the impugned order is contrary to the letter dated 27.09.2018. 8. Referring to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v Union of India and Others1 , it is argued by the learned 1. (2008) 8 SCC 725 7 / 8 counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be treated adversely without seeking his representation or explanation about the ACR, which was not communicated to him, therefore, the order of discontinuation of employment is rendered in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. This court is convinced that the order of discontinuation of contract appointment of the petitioners deserves to be quashed for the reason that confidential report of the person, appointed on contract, shall be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he 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 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 to any benefit out of the ACR or PAR the same has to be communicated without which it cannot be considered against the employee. 10. 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, 8 / 8 the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. (See: State of Maharashtra v Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others2). 11. 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. 12. For the reason stated herein above, I am inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed, the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 is quashed. 13. The competent authority shall now provide the petitioners an opportunity to represent against the ACR/PAR and based on the decision on the petitioners’ 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. 14. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/Jyoti 2 (2007) 3 SCC 587