1 2025:CGHC:37877-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 554 of 2025 1 Ram Sai S/o Shri Gangadeen Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Tamdad, Tahsil And Police Station Khadgawan District- Koria (C.G.) 2 Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Sumar Sai Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Painari, Tahsil And Police Station Khadgawan, District- Koria (C.G.) 3 Smt. Anita Wife Of Shri Ranjeet Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Pondi, Tahsil And Police Station Khadawan District- Koria (C.G.) 4 Vinod Kumar Sahu Son Of Shri Shiv Bachan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Pondidih, Tahsil, And Police Station Khadgawan, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Collector Koria District Koria (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02 12:29:57 +0530 2 3 The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan District- Koria (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner in writ petition has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4786 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition by setting aside the order of removal however the petitioner was not given the benefit of reinstatement and back-wages. 2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioners were working as Rojgar Sahayak at different Gram Panchayat i.e. Pondidih, Painari, Tamdad and Pondi, which comes under the Janpad Panchayat Khadgawan District Koria. They were rendering their service as Rozgar Sahayak from the last 7 to 8 years. By order dated 15.06.2017, the Respondent No.03 without giving any prior show cause notice or seeking any explanation from the petitioners 3 terminated their services. As the termination was in violation of Principles of natural justice, the petitioners questioned the same. By the impugned order, the order of termination as set aside but benefit of reinstatement and back-wages were not provided. Hence, this appeal. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “ 4. Though the contract period of the Petitioners had come to an end but since the impugned Order of removal is an stigmatic order, the same is set-aside. However, the Petitioners would not be entitled for reinstatement and back-wages. Nonetheless, the Petitioners are at liberty to apply fresh in accordance with law in future. 5. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed off.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that State Government had issued circular dated 30.07.2014 stating that without providing opportunity or conducting enquiry, the services of Rozgar Sahayak cannot be terminated. He further submits that appellants have been removed without affording opportunity of hearing or without conducting Departmental Enquiry which is bad in law. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error by not 4 providing benefit of reinstatement and back wages and prays that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument made and submits that there were public complaints against the petitioner of irregularities and their work also was not found to be satisfactory and thus the order of removal was passed which is in accordance of law. He further submits that Learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to appear fresh in accordance with law in future. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Bare perusal of the order impugned it is apparent that there was several complaints against the petitioners in respect of committing certain irregularities and even the work was also not found to be satisfactory. While passing the order impugned the learned Single Judge has rightly set-aside the removal order as the same was a stigmatic order. Since, the petitioners were contractual employees they are not entitled for reinstatement and back wages as their contract period has already come to an end. The learned Single Judge has rightly granted liberty to the petitioners to apply afresh in accordance with law in future. 8. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any 5 illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar