Nafr High Court
Case Details
ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:31:59 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:47382-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 684 of 2025 Arjun Singh Rathore S/o Shri Sanat Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bithaldah, Janpad Panchyat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - The Program Officer- Janpad Panchayat Lormi District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat- Navaganw Vainkat Through Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Navaganw Vainkat, Janpad Panchyat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate & 2/State General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General 2 Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Per 16.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 15 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to: Call for the entire records of the WPS No. 1857/2020 for its kind perusal, 1. Allow the instant writ appeal & set-aside / quash the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Ann A-1), passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1857/2020 in the interest of justice 2. The Respondent authorities be directed to allow the Appellant / Petitioner to continue on 3 the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Gram panchayat Navagaon Vainkat, Janpad Panchayat Lormi District Mungeli (C.G.) after giving the salary for the period from 01.03.2019 to 31.12.2019, in the interest of justice. pass any other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1857/2020 (Arjun Singh Rathore v. State of
Decision
Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed, thereby upholding the action/decision of the respondents which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis vide order dated 02.11.2010, and his place of posting was at Gram Panchayat Navaganw Vainkat, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli, with effect from 02.11.2010 till February 2011, which was subsequently extended from time to time. However, in December 2019, he was restrained from continuing on the said post and was removed from his employment. 4 6. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.1857/2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.07.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.1857/2020, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) is wholly unsustainable as the same is against the facts, evidence, and materials available on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the order without appreciating that notices were never served upon the appellant/writ petitioner in accordance with law and the statutory provisions prescribed. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 9209/2023 (Damini Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.08.2025, wherein the order of termination was quashed in absence of a fair inquiry and for not providing proper opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 2515/2025 (Praveen Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.04.2025, wherein a similar view was taken and the 5 authority was directed to hold a departmental inquiry after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein. Reliance is further placed on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 6048/2017 (Vineeta Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.07.2025, wherein the impugned order was quashed in absence of inquiry and the authority was directed to take appropriate decision after affording proper opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order is in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ragupathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2022) 6 SCC 346, wherein it has been categorically held that while dealing with termination or suspension cases, even in respect of contractual employees, the statutory provisions relating to compliance of natural justice and holding of inquiry must be adhered to. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/State as well as respondent No.3 submit that the appellant/writ petitioner was a purely contractual employee engaged as Rojgar Sahayak and his continuation was subject to terms of contract and satisfaction of the employer. It is contended that no vested right accrues in favour of a contractual appointee to claim regularization or continuation, and therefore the action of discontinuance cannot be faulted. It is further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has been given due opportunity and the discontinuance is based on administrative exigency and unsatisfactory performance. The judgments relied upon by the 6 appellant are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. It is argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, based on correct appreciation of law and facts, and therefore calls for no interference in appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1857/2020. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and those of the learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 have received our thoughtful consideration. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “7. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) on 02.11.2010 vide Annexure-P/1 till February 2011 on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. Though document with regard to every year extension of employment of the petitioner till 2019 has not been filed, but the respondents also have conceded the fact that every year petitioner’s employment was 7 extended till 2019. 8. The respondents have filed notices dated 07.12.2017, 23.12.2017, 31.01.2018, 21.01.2018, 22.6.2018, 22.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 28.3.2019 (R-1/1 colly) served to the petitioner and last notice was served to the petitioner on 02.5.2019 (Annexure-R-1/4) to submit his explanation, else, appropriate action shall be taken against him under the Rule 2012. The petitioner has not filed any explanation to the notices served to him. Despite serving a number of notices, not submitting reply by the petitioner shows that how negligent he was towards his duty and instruction given by the authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. Even, in spite of clear instructions given in the last two notices, he did not file his reply, therefore, vide Order dated 31.7.2019, the authority has declined to extend his employment beyond 2019. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, judgment relied by the petitioner also could not help him, as despite issuance of repeated notices, he never replied to it. Further it is not a case of removal of the petitioner from employment, rather it is a case of non-extension of period of contract, due to sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner towards his duty, as has been discussed above. 8 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, hence, the same is dismissed at the motion stage.” 12. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the appellant/writ petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis as Rojgar Sahayak under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) and his engagement was extended from year to year at the discretion of the competent authority. Such extensions did not confer any vested or permanent right upon him to claim continuation or regularization of employment. The record clearly indicates that multiple notices were issued to the appellant/writ petitioner on various dates, including 07.12.2017, 23.12.2017, 31.01.2018, 21.01.2018, 22.06.2018, 22.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 28.03.2019, and finally on 02.05.2019, calling upon him to furnish explanations. Despite repeated opportunities, the appellant/writ petitioner failed to respond to any of the notices, demonstrating negligence and non- compliance with the duties entrusted to him. The non-extension of contract beyond 2019, therefore, arose not out of arbitrary removal but on account of his inaction and failure to discharge his responsibilities. 13. The judgments relied upon by the appellant/writ petitioner, including Damini Garg (supra), Praveen Goyal (supra), Vineeta Sahu (supra) and K. Ragupathi (supra), are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, unlike those 9 judgments, the appellant/writ petitioner had been repeatedly called upon to submit explanations and failed to do so, and thus, the principles of natural justice were not violated. 14. In view of the above, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant/writ petitioner. The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1857/2020 reflects proper appreciation of law and facts, and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is further clarified that the dismissal of this appeal shall not confer any right on the appellant/writ petitioner for regularization, reinstatement, or continuation of the contractual engagement beyond the period for which it was lawfully extended. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu