1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3752 of 2018 1 - Smt. Janki Rajput W/o Shri Kamal Singh, Aged About 40 Years Removed From The Post Of Cook, Working At Kasturba Awas Balika Chhatrawas, Sardha Lormi, R/o Near Nursery Sardha, Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Kasturba Awas Balika Chhatrawas, Sardha Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure-P/1). 10.2 That the petitioner most humbly and respect fully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction directing the respondents to reinstate the service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” -2- 2. Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as daily rated employee to the post of Chief Cook at Kasturba Awas Balika Chhatrawas, Sardha, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). He would further that the petitioner was appointed there in the year 2005 and her services were terminated vide order dated 06.12.2017. He would contend that the principle of natural justice was not followed and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He would further contend that though there were allegations against the petitioner but no inquiry was conducted, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Bhagat. He would submit that various complaints were received against the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted by the Block Education Officer, Lormi on 09.04.2015 and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. He would further submit that the petitioner was a daily rated employee, therefore, she would not get benefit of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as daily rated employee under respondent No.4. She was appointed in the year 2005 and her services were terminated vide order dated 06.12.2017. 6. The return would show that an inquiry was conducted by the Block Education Officer and a report was submitted on 09.04.2015. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. 7. As the petitioner was a daily rated employee, I am not inclined to 3 interfere with the decision taken by the District Education Officer, Mungeli, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the Collector raising all her grievances and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha