1 2025:CGHC:36160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1858 of 2021 1 - Kumari Smita Painkra D/o V. L. Painka Aged About 28 Years Occupation Technical Assistant Contract, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh R/o Infront Of Shree Kunj Colony, Boirdadar Road Raigarh, P. S. Chakradharnagar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector /District Program Cordinator Manrega Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guaranty Cell. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guaranty Cell. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3 and directed the respondent no.3 to grant all the consequential benefit including monitoring benefit. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Technical Assistant. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant on a contract basis under respondent No.3 vide order dated 9.12.2015, for a period of three years. He would further submit that the petitioner joined the service on 14.12.2015 and was discharging her duties with sincerity and honesty. He would contend that the period of the contract was extended from time to time, but respondent No.3 vide order dated 3.2.2021, terminated her services after giving one month’s salary in advance. He would also submit that the said order contains an observation that the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory, and such a remark is stigmatic; therefore, respondent No.3 was under an obligation to conduct an enquiry. He would pray to quash the said termination order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner was appointed according to Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘Rules 2012’) for a period of three years. They would contend that the services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. They would further contend that the appointing authority may extend the period of the contract appointment for one year at a time, depending on the necessity and after assessing the suitability of the incumbent. They 3 would also submit that the petitioner was not found suitable and therefore, according to Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012, one month’s salary was paid in advance to the petitioner and the services were terminated. They would also contend that the order (Annexure-P/1) is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 2012, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant on a contract basis vide order dated 9.12.2015. Vide order dated 3.2.2021, respondent No.3 terminated her services after making an advance payment of the salary of one month. The said order was passed in accordance with the provisions of Rules 11(4) & (5) of the Rules, 2012. Under the said Rules, the appointing authority is empowered to extend the period of the contractual appointment for one year at a time, subject to the necessity and assessment of the suitability. The work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, and she was found unsuitable for further extension; hence, her services were terminated. The termination order dated 3.2.2021 passed by respondent No.3 is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. Therefore, there was no requirement for respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi