1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4372 of 2017 1 - G.S. Sharma S/o Shri Ram Singh Sharma, Age about 65 year, Retired Senior Accountant Nagar Nigam, Korba, R/o F-4, Nagar Nigam Staff Colony, Shiv Mandir Thana - ITI, Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 -State of C.G. Through- Secretary Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag Mantralya, Naya Raipur, Chhattigarh. 2. Recovery Officer Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, Naya Raipur, Chhattigarh 3. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Ruler Road Development, Project, Implementation Branch- Korba - 1 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4.Neeta Bilthare, Accounts Officer, Office of Chhattisgarh Ruler Road Development, Project, Implementation Branch - Korba - 1 --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 08.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the oral not allowed to perform duty dated 16/08/2017 of Petitioner and direct Respondent Authority to allow him to perform duty of Accounts Officer as per his Appointment Order. 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 14/08/2017. Pertaining to Respondent no. 4. REKHA SINGH 2 10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accountant on contract basis under respondent No.3 vide order dated 10.08.2017 for a period of one year. He would further submit that very next day, his services were discontinued without complying with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’). He would contend that atleast the petitioner was entitled for one month’s salary before discontinuation of service. He would further contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, also the impugned order is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singh. He would submit that as regular employee was appointed on the post of Accountant in place of petitioner, therefore, services of the petitioner were discontinued. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012 reads as under : “11.Period of appointment - (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11(5) Either of both the parties may terminate the contact appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its place.” 7. A bare reading of the above-quoted Rule would make it clear that before discontinuation of service, respondent No.3 was under an obligation to make payment of advance one month’s salary to the petitioner and that 3 provision has not been complied with, therefore, the present petition is partly allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to make payment of one month’s salary to the petitioner forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha