-1- 2025:CGHC:29083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6207 of 2018 Dinesh Kumar Shriwas S/o Sudhuram Shriwas Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kodwagodan, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3- Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4- Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 : Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.06.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure.P/1), passed by the Respondent no.02 and order dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure.P/2) passed by the Respondent no.04. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak (employment assistant) vide order dated 19.07.2008, at Gram Panchayat Kodvagodan, P.S. Kukdur, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s services were terminated on 27.04.2017 by an oral instruction issued by the Collector, without issuance of any show cause notice ‐ or holding of an enquiry as mandated under the applicable rules. He submits that such action was in violation of the prescribed service conditions, and thus, he would pray for direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner’s appointment was purely on contractual basis. It is submitted that various complaints had been received against him, including alleged failure to attend the “Lok Swaraj Abhiyan”, and also he performed his duties negligently. It is further contended that under a purely contractual arrangement, there is no requirement to issue a show cause ‐ notice or to hold a formal enquiry prior to termination; thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents carefully. 5) The Clause 13 of the circular dated 30.07.2014 issued Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employement Gaurantee Scheme, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh is reproduced as under:- “13. ग्राम रोजगारो सहायक क विरूद्ध अवियमिमतत/ कतव्य क प्रवित लापरोहा क जकरो प्रप्त हा मख्य कयपला अधि करो जपद प"चायत द्वारो स"बं"धि त ग्राम रोजगारो सहायक क सई क असरो प्रद विकय जयगा। प्रकरोण म) ग्राम रोजगारो सहायक दषी पय ज परो जिजला क्रायक्राम समन्यक/ कलाक्टरो स अमद प्रप्त करो, मख्य कयपला अधि करो, जपद प"चायत द्वारो ग्राम रोजगारो सहायक क पद स प0थक करो -3- ” क कयहा क जयगा। 6) From a perusal of the documents, it is evident that the termination of the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak was effected without adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Clause 13 of the circular dated 30.07.2014. The clause clearly mandates that upon receiving information regarding any irregularity or negligence in duty, the concerned Rojgar Sahayak must be given an opportunity of hearing by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Further action for removal can only be taken after obtaining approval from the District Programme Coordinator/Collector. 7) In the present case, the petitioner was removed solely on the basis of oral instruction of the Collector, without issuance of any show-cause notice, without conducting any enquiry, and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Such action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the aforesaid circular. Even if the petitioner was on contractual employment, summary termination without due process is not unsustainable. 8) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the impugned orders dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure.P/1), passed by the Respondent no.02 and 27.04.2017 (Annexure.P/2) passed by the Respondent no.04 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith to the post of Rojgar Sahayak. 9) With regard to back wages, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities, and the appropriate authority would consider the representation on its merits, in accordance with law. 10) Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim