1 2025:CGHC:48835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7604 of 2023 1 - Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Rohidas Aged About 35 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Bulgaon, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Programme Officer Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Project, Janpad Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner :- Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 23.09.2025 1. Petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the Respondent No.3 has discontinued the services of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat, Pachawal, under the Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in the year 2008 on contract basis. Having put in about 16 years of service, Respondent No.3 has now passed the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) whereby the service of the Petitioner has been terminated. The order of termination has been passed on the ground that services of the petitioner is not satisfactory. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, services of the petitioner were getting renewed periodically and that there had been no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner nor was the 3 petitioner ever issued with a show cause notice or warning letter issued in respect of misconduct, irregularity or dereliction of duty on the part of the Petitioner. He further submits that the termination of contractual appointment of the Petitioner abruptly after casting allegations makes the impugned order stigmatic order and also in violation of basic principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioner has not been granted any opportunity of hearing or defence before the impugned order was passed. Thus, the impugned order is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the Petitioner was a contractual appointee, and therefore, if any complaint was made against him and services of the petitioner is not satisfactory, the order of termination is fully justified. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order of termination would manifest that the Petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. The order does not refer to any show cause notice or enquiry wherein the Petitioner was allowed to participate. It is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice, which is clearly established from the language of the order of termination itself, and therefore, for the reason that no order adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4072), the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) 4 deserves to be and is hereby quashed at the admission stage itself. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to take appropriate action after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and to take a decision about continuation of the Petitioner's services at the end of completion of the period of contract. 6. It is also made clear that the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this order shall not be construed in favour of either parties and any action or proceeding initiated against the Petitioner after issuance of show cause notice against him, shall be decided strictly in accordance with its own merits and law. 7. Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha