1 2025:CGHC:46339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2664 of 2022 * - Khir Kumar Bhar S/o Late Shri Mangal Sai Bhar Aged About 29 Years R/o Qt. No. 122, Near I.T.I. Bansuladipa, Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna, Office Indravati Bhawan, Qt. No. 36, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to quash the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent no. 4, and further be pleased to re-instated the service of the petitioner, in the ends of justice. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.15 19:22:06 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to direct the respondent Collector, to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a stipulated period of time, in the ends of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant on contract for period of 01 month vide order dated 18.01.2018. He would contend that the period of contract was extended from time to time and vide order dated 18.02.2020, the services were terminated by respondent No. 4 as his work was not found satisfactory. He would further contend that the petitioner was advised 03-04 weeks for bed-rest w.e.f. 01.01.2020 on account of certain ailments and therefore, he could not perform his duty properly. He would submit that the petitioner has made representation before the Collector in the month of June, 2020, but till date it has not been considered. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose. He would submit that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the employer, therefore, his services were terminated. He would further submit that as the order of termination of services was simplicitor, therefore, there was no need to conduct any inquiry etc. He would submit that the the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The petitioner was appointed for period of 01 month on contract basis to the post of Technical Assistant under respondent No. 4. His work 3 was not found satisfactory, therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 18.02.2020. 6. Perusal of the order would reveal that it was not a punitive or stigmatic order rather it was order of termination of services simplicitor. 7. Be that as it may, as representation was made by the petitioner before the Collector, Mahasamund in the month of June, 2020, but it has not been decided till date, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti