1 2025:CGHC:40882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8357 of 2025 1 - Bhawna Paul W/o Kristopher Paul Aged About 46 Years R/o Gauri Nagar, Ward No.-13, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chairman Sarweshwar Das Nagar Palika Nigam Higher Secondary English Medium School Of Excellence, Management Committee, Collectorate Premises, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Thakre, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 13/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.14 19:36:36 +0530 2 petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Ann. P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to give all service benefits to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to work at her earlier post. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (English) vide order dated 03-10-2020, on contractual basis, and she was posted at Sarweshwar Das Nagar Palika Nigam Higher Secondary School Excellence English Medium School, Rajnandgaon. The initial appointment of the petitioner was up to 30-04-2021 and thereafter, her contractual employment was extended time to time. However, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 30-06-2025 (Annexure P/1), after giving her one month's salary in advance. He would further submit that, without assigning any reason, the petitioner has been removed from the service after terminating her contractual appointment and the rules for removal of the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, has not been followed, and 3 therefore, the removal of the petitioner is bad in law and the order dated 30-06-2025 may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that, though the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 03-10-2020, and her services were extended time to time, but her appointment was contractual appointment under the said Rules of 2012. She cannot claim to be a regular employee with the department. Clause 8 of her appointment order specifically provides that she can be removed at any time by giving one-month advance notice or one- month salary in advance and while removing the petitioner from service vide order dated 30-06-2025, she has been paid one-month salary in advance as per clause 8 of her appointment order. Therefore, her removal is strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2012 as well as conditions of her contractual appointment, and therefore, no relief can be granted in the writ petition to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on 03-10-2020 and was posted at Sarweshwar Das Nagar Palika Nigam Higher Secondary School Excellence English Medium School, Rajnandgaon. Clause 8 of her appointment order clearly provides that:- “8. संविदा अधि के दारान दान पक्षो में सं विकेसं एके पक्षो द्वारा एके मेंह प संचन या उसंके एज में एके संह के तन दाकेरा विनयाक्ति!त संमेंप्त के# ज संके गी।” 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 30-06-2025 (Annexure P/1), it also transpires that as per clause 11.5 of the Rules of 2012 and clause 8 of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 03-10-2020, the petitioner was paid one month's salary in advance through the cheque No. 000014 and she has been removed from service. It further appears that the removal of the petitioner is not by any stigmatic order, so that any inquiry is being required before her removal. It is only in compliance of the conditions of clause 8 of her appointment order, she has been removed after following the rider of providing one month's salary in advance to her. I do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in removing the petitioner vide order dated 30-06-2025. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved