1 (WPS No. 6355 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:23105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6355 of 2016 1 - Pyarelal Sharma S/o Late Tikendra Lal Sharma, Aged About 48 Years R/o H.No. 685, Anand Vihar Colony Behind Collectorate Colony Ward No. 8, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman, The Hitwad Parisar Avanti Vihar, Head Office Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., The Hitwad Parisar Avanti Vihar, Head Office Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.4:- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.06.12 17:13:31 +0530 2 (WPS No. 6355 of 2016) SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 11.06.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent authorities for extension of his service period on the post of contingent Technical Assistant looking to his past experience of 13 years in the corporation and also challenging advertisement dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No.1 for fresh recruitment. 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of contingent Technical Assistant on contractual basis for a period of 60 days vide order dated 17.07.2003 (Annexure P/2). However, the petitioner was allowed to work for a very long time as per work based requirement but later his services were dispensed with vide order dated 05.02.2016 and advertisement dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/4) was issued by the respondent authority for fresh recruitment through placement agency, against which this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as contingent Technical Assistant on contractual basis under the respondent authority since the year 2003 and the respondent 3 (WPS No. 6355 of 2016) authority instead of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization has discontinued his services w.e.f. 05.02.2016, which is absolutely unjustified and uncalled for. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of contingent Technical Assistant on contractual basis for a period of 60 days but his service period was extended from time to time as per work based requirement. However, in the Board meeting of the respondent corporation convened on 11.08.2016, a policy decision was taken to fill up 27 vacant posts of Junior Technical Assistant through placement agency for a period of one year for 2016-2017 and, therefore, the petitioner’s services were discontinued upon completion of his service period. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of contingent Technical Assistant on contractual basis for a period of 60 days vide order dated 4 (WPS No. 6355 of 2016) 17.07.2003 (Annexure P/2) and his services were extended from time to time and, thereafter, on completion of his contractual period his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 05.02.2016. However, in this writ petition, the petitioner has neither challenged his order of termination nor he has sought any kind of regularization except extension of his service period, which cannot be granted as the petitioner’s services has already been dispensed with w.e.f. from 05.02.2016 upon completion of his contractual period and he is no longer in service for the last nine years. Furthermore, advertisement dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/4) was issued by the respondent corporation to fill up 27 posts of Quality Inspectors for a period of 08 months through placement agency, whereas the petitioner has worked on the post of contingent Technical Assistant and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought. 7. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!