1 2025:CGHC:8589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 301 of 2025 Ashok S/o Gangaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No 6 Badka Tola, Tarai Gawa, Pakariya Bilaspur, District Gorela Pendra Marwahi (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Department of Forest And Climate Change, Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Office of The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Government of Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Conservator of Forest Forest Circle Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Forest Range Officer Forest Range Gorela, District Gorela Pendra Marwahi (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Gorela, District Gorela Pendra Marwahi (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.20 17:54:25 +0530 2 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents authorities concerning to the Petitioner's Case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to directing respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service and to disburse the remaining amount of remuneration which has not been paid to the petitioner to meet the ends of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents authority to consider the petitioner's case for regular appointment/ absorption into regular services. 10.4 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of petitioner and decide the same within a fixed time in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case please be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Watchman since 2005-2006 under the 3 respondent-Department and the respondent authorities without any rhyme or reason, has removed the petitioner from his service, due to which the petitioner has become unemployed. He further submits that the petitioner has moved several representations to different officers of the Department, but none of representations was even considered by the respondent authorities till date. It has been contended that it is settled position of law that one set of temporary employee cannot be substituted from the second set of temporary employee since the respondent authorities have not appointed anyone permanently to the said post, the petitioner must not be removed from service. It has been further contended that the test of non-arbitrariness requires that every action of the state authorities must be backed by the reason which must be communicated to the effected person, in instant case, the petitioner was not informed with any reason as also not giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore the action on the part of the respondent authorities is totally arbitrary. He lastly submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to take decision on the pending representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time frame. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent authorities will consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the documents as well as arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it seems that without there being any order of removal, petitioner has been restrained from work only on the whims and wishes of the respondent authorities. Petitioner has worked for about 19-20 years as Watchman. However, one fine morning, he was directed not to come for further service. This type of oral order cannot be passed. The respondent authorities should have considered the work rendered by the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in respect of continuation of his service. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a copy of this order along with a copy of the pending representation before the respondent authorities, so that his pending representation will be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law within one month from the date of production of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations/directions. 5 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities will consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner on its own merits taking into consideration of his 19-20 years of service. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh