1 2025:CGHC:11749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6194 of 2018 1 - Smt. Asha Sharma D/o Sukhdev Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gauripur, P. O. Nawaparakala, P. S. Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanandi Bhawan, Raipur, P. S. And P. O. Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Surajpur, P. S. And P. O. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Premnagar, P. S. And P. O. Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Programme Officer Chhattisgarh Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarntee Yojna (Manrega) Janpad Panchayat Premnagar, P. S. And P. O. Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Surajpur, P. S. And P. O. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar-Cum-Assistant Election Returning Officer (Sahayak Nirvachan Rastriyakaran Adhikari) Premnagar, P. S. And P. O. Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For State : Mr.Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Anand Dadariya, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH Date: 2025.03.12 10:44:30 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to quash impugned order dated 25.08.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annex. P/1), whereby petitioner's service has been terminated and allowed the petitioner to continue on the post of Employment Helper (Rojgar Sahayak), in Gram Panchayat, Gauripur, Janpad Panchayat, Premnagar, District. Surajpur, C.G. 2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record of matter. 3] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper.” 2. Ms. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the provisions of Rule 11 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment), Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’), an order of termination was passed against the petitioner by respondent No.3 on 25.08.2018. She would further submit that one month prior notice or salary was not given to the petitioner and thus, she would pray that the order impugned issued by respondent No.3 may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Kaur, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Mehta. She would submit that one month’s salary was already paid to the petitioner. She would further submit sufficient 3 opportunity of hearing was afforded and notices were issued to the petitioner. She would contend that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, a decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. She would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee and she was employed for a particular period. Respondent No. 3 issued notices to the petitioner and a reply was filed by the petitioner, thus the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing. A decision was taken by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, 2012. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that sufficient opportunity was afforded by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner; notices were issued and the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory; one month’s salary was also paid in advance, and thereafter, a decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha