1 2025:CGHC:19884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5258 of 2017 1 - Smt. Lata Khute W/o Shri D. R. Khute Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Service Posted As Social Worker At District Early Intervention Centre, District Hospital Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. R/o Gangapur Khurd, Ring Road, Namnakala, Near New Bus Stand Ambikapur, Post And Tehsil Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Revenue And Civil District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Prior To Marriage The Surname Of The Petitioner Was Lata Toppo, But After Marriage, The Petitioner Is Writing Now Lata Khute , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director, National Health Mission, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director, National Rural Health Mission, Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ambikapur, Revenue And Civil District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balrampur- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rishi Sahu, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court máy kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by quashing the impugned letter dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure P/1), issued by respondent no. 5 and further be please to issue a suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by directing the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 5 to allow the petitioner to work on the aforesaid post of Social Worker (DEIC). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Social Worker (DEIC) on a contractual basis vide order dated 17.4.2017. He would submit that the petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 16.5.2017 on the ground that he committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.40,53,979/-. He would contend that a writ petition was filed and a direction was issued to the respondent 3 authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner. It is contended that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.5 vide order dated 12.9.2017. He would submit that sufficient opportunity was not afforded and the impugned order is stigmatic in nature. He would pray to quash the orders dated 12.9.2017 & 16.5.2017. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Social Worker (DEIC) on a contractual basis. They would contend that the petitioner committed financial irregularities, a proper enquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity was afforded to him. They would further submit that the contractual period has already expired on 31.3.2018, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there are serious allegations with regard to embezzlement and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and further, the period of contract has already expired, no case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi