1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6681 of 2021 1 - Nisha Rajput (Peti. In Person) W/o Vivek Gautam Aged About 38 Years Tribal Research And Training Institute, Near By Purkhauti Muktangan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Niranjan Singh Rajput Father Of The Petitioner Nisha Rajput, Resident Of Nearby Maa Girls Hostel Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Principal Secretary To The Prime Minister Of India, South Block, New Delhi, 2 - Secretary Department Of Personal Grivance, Administrative Reform And Pension, 112 North Block New Delhi 3 - Chief Secretary State Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur 4 - Principal Secretary, State Government Of Chhattisgarh Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur 5 - Secretary, State Government Of Chhattisgarh Schedule Tribe Schedule Caste Other Backward Classes Minority Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur 6 - Madam Shammi Aabidee Director Tribal Research And Training Institute Nearby Purkhouti Muktangan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Secretary State Governmentof Chhattisgarh Labour And Employment Depatment Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur 8 - Officer Incharge Of The Commiittee Constituted For Regularzation Of Temporary Employees Gad, Mantralaya 2 Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur 9 - Dr. T.K. Vaishnav Deputy Secretary To Honorable Governer Of Chhattisgarh Rajbhawan Raipur 10 - Secretary State Government Of Chhattisgarh Woman And Child Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Niranjan Singh Rajput in person for petitioner No. 1 For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17.07.2025 1. Mr. Niranjan Singh Rajput, Petitioner No.2 in person, has been authorized by Petitioner No.1 to appear in this case and make submissions. 2. Petitioner No.2 in person does not want to press his claim with regard to recovery from retiral dues. Accordingly, the claim of Petitioner No.2 is hereby rejected. 3. The facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Data Entry Operator/Typist as a daily-rated employee in the office of respondent No.6 on 01.06.2012. She continued till February, 2021. She availed maternity leave and thereafter, approached the authority to join the services, but she was not permitted in the absence of a sanctioned and vacant post. It was also stated by the respondent authorities that funds were not allotted at that point in time. 3 4. Petitioner No.1 has challenged the action of the respondents whereby her services were discontinued. It is pleaded and argued that petitioner No.1 worked for 9 years with respondent No.6, and without any reason, her services were discontinued. It is also argued that right has accrued in favour of petitioner No.1 as she continuously worked for 9 years and the discontinuation of her service is in violation of Articles 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate petitioner No.1 and pass an order of regularization. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that petitioner No.1 was orally engaged on the post of Data Entry Operator. He would further submit that no appointment order was issued in favour of petitioner No.1. Mr. Gupta would fairly submit that she worked till 10th March, 2021. He would contend that petitioner No.1 applied for maternity leave and when she returned, in the absence of a sanctioned and vacant post, she was not permitted to join the services. He would further contend that there was one post of Data Entry Operator and it was filled with a regular appointment in the year 2008. Mr. Gupta would further submit that respondent No.6 was receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the Government of 4 India for its research, survey, and evaluation activities. He would further contend that in the year 2021, there was no allocation of funds. He would also contend that the fund was allocated by the Government of India in the year 2024- 25. He would also submit that as petitioner No.1 was engaged by an oral order, her services were discontinued by oral order. He would further state that as petitioner No.1 was a daily-rated employee, no right had accrued in her favour and the provisions of Articles 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India would not attract. He would contend that the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services under the Union and the States. Article 309 of the Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. Both these provisions are reproduced herein below:- “309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may 5 regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. 311. 311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State- (1)No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an al l.India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a Slate shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2)No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against hi m and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges;Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: 6 Provided further that this clause shall not apply-- (a)where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to hi s conviction on a criminal charge; or (b)where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c)where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3)If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.” 8. A bare reading of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India would make it clear that these provisions would apply to the public servants serving with the Union of India or the State and who have been recruited according to the Service Rules and the constitutional mandate. 9. The contention made by Petitioner No.2 in Person, with regard to the applicability of Article 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India, is misconceived. Petitioner No.1 was not a regular employee either under the Union of India or State, and no appointment order was issued in her favour; therefore, Articles 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India would not attract. 7 10. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as a daily-rated employee in the post of Data Entry Operator under respondent No.6 on 01.06.2012. She worked there till 10.03.2021, and thereafter, she went on maternity leave, and when she returned, she was not permitted to join the services. The respondents, in their return, have stated that there was no vacancy and funds were also not allotted; therefore, she was not permitted to continue her services. It is categorically stated that the funds were allotted by the Government of India in the year 2024-25, whereas, the services of the petitioner were discontinued in the month of March, 2021 itself. 11. It is also not in dispute that no order of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner No.1, and the order of termination of services was also not issued. Therefore, there was no need to hold any inquiry or issue a show- cause notice. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, Petitioner No.1 would be at liberty to avail of the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha