2025:JHHC:11040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3311 of 2021 ----- Vikash Kumar, S/o Surendra Chaudhary ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department, Project Bhawan PO+PS. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2.The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Commissioner Office, Court campus, Po+Ps- Sadar Dist- Hazaribag (Jharkhand) 3.The Deputy Commissioner, D C Office, Court campus, Po+Ps- Sadar Sadar Dist- Chatra (Jharkhand) 4.The Director, Lekha Prashashan and swa niyojan D R D A, Po+Ps- Chatra Dist- Chatra (Jharkhand) 5.The Block Development Officer, Pratappur, Po+Ps- Pratappur, Dist- Chatra (Jharkhand) 6.Sri Bijendra Kumar, JAS, The then BDO of Pratappur Block, Po+Ps- Pratap pur Dist- Chatra (Jharkhand) ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AC to AAG-I …...... 07 / 09.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner was working as a Block Co-Ordinator, Pratappur Block, in District- Chatra. Vide Memo No.631/ ft-xzk- dated 02.07.2019 (Annexue- 4) the respondents have taken a decision not to renew the service contract of the petitioner. The ground for non-renewal is that the petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory. Further, from Annexure-3, it is apparent that there is an allegation against the petitioner that he is not performing his duties properly and his conduct is unlike of Government Officials. Thus, it is clear that on allegation, the respondents have decided not to extend/ renew the service contract of the petitioner. Admittedly, during course of the argument, the fact which transpired is that no show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order whereby the respondents have taken a decision not to renew the service contract. It is apparent from the documents especially 2025:JHHC:11040 Annexure-3, that on earlier occasion, the service contract of the petitioner was being renewed. 3. Further, from Annexures-5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition, it is apparent that the higher official, thereafter reviewed the performance of the petitioner and had arrived at a conclusion that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered sympathetically and there is scope of renewal of the contract. 4. Even if, a person is working on contractual basis, his contract cannot be terminated based on some allegations without issuing show- cause notice. In this case there is an allegation against the petitioner thus the order is stigmatic, which required issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner. Be it noted that non-extension of contract in this case results in removal from service. Further, there are documents to suggest that the respondents after considering the performance of the petitioner themselves arrived at conclusion that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered sympathetically. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Another, reported in 2024 INSC 638 (Neutral Citation) has held that even in the case of termination of contractual employee, when the termination order is stigmatic, principles of natural justice must be followed. Para 19 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- 19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.” 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2019, and remand back the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to consider the case of the petitioner, considering -2- 2025:JHHC:11040 the documents which has been placed along with the writ petition i.e. especially Annexures- 5, 6 and 7. If the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner needs to be considered sympathetically for renewal, he will pass an appropriate order. On the contrary, if he thinks that the petitioner’s service contract does not need to be renewed, he will issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner giving detail grounds on which he believes that the contract need not to be renewed. Only after receiving the reply from the petitioner, the respondents can take up the steps to the detriment of the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. The entire process should be concluded within ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/ ten weeks from the date of receipt of reply to the show-cause notice, as the case may be, whichever is later. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S. -3-