1 2025:CGHC:11295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 561 of 2021 1 - Pradeep Pandey S/o Shri Radheraman Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Jal Vihar Colony, Rudri, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director Cum Assistant Project Manager Wcdc, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 by which appointment order of petitioner dated 28.12.2017 has been canceled. 2. The petitioner was appointed at Nagri District - Dhamtari as an expert in the project namely Integrated Watershed Management Programme by Deputy Director Agriculture cum Assistant Project Manager, District BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.03.25 10:47:23 +0530 2 Dhamtari after duly approval granted by the Collector Dhamtari on 28.12.2017. The said contractual engagement on Collector rate has been canceled by the Deputy Director Agriculture cum Project Manager, Dhamtari vide order dated 06.01.2021 without any rhyme and reason. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 is arbitrary and illegal. He would further submit that the appointment order itself provides that petitioner could be terminated on the ground that work of petitioner is unsatisfactory and it is not so in the instant case as the petitioner was performing his duties with honesty and sincerity and considering his satisfactory work additional charge has been provided to the petitioner. 4. He would further submit that the Labour Department of State Government has issued a letter on 20.03.2020 to all Employers Factory Owners, Proprietors etc looking to peculiar circumstances arisen due to Covid-19. The Labour Department has issued various instructions/directions for welfare of employees during COVID-19 Pandemic. It has been further contended that Clause No. 2 provides that if any worker is suffering from Covid-19 then proper assistance should have been provided to such patient and he be also provided earned leave. Clause No. 5 of the said instruction further provides that no employee/worker should be terminated/retrenched and there should be no break in service and there should be no deduction in salary also. He would further submit that the Additional Development Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh had issued letter dated 08.10.2020 to Director Panchayat, Commissioner to furnish information about irregular, contract employees, daily rated workers etc for 3 regularizing their services, but ignoring that instructions impugned order 04.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) has been issued. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that 06 persons have already been appointed on 16.07.2020 therefore in the event of such regular appointment the requirement of the petitioner’s service was not required further and temporary appointment of the petitioner has been replaced by the regular appointment on regular post. He would further submit that vide letter dated 22.06.2020 received from respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary, Department of Agriculture regarding irregular and illegal appointment made in IWMP project the concerned department had taken action not to further continue services of such temporary appointee like the present petitioner, therefore, soon after appointment of technical expert on regular post, the order of temporary appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, as such he cannot take benefits of COVID-19 Pandemic and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that the respondents vide impugned order dated 06.01.2021 have not assigned any reason though the petitioner was appointed on collector rate on 28.12.2017, as such atleast they should give reason as to why the petitioner’s engagement on collector rate was discontinued and others are continuing. This is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondent. It is also well settled position of law that though daily wages employee has no right to hold the post or continue the post but once others who have been subsequently appointed are allowed to continue then the petitioner should have been given the reason why his 4 services have been terminated. It is well settled position of law that assigning reason is the essence of administrative action though not a detailed reason but some reason should have been assigned. In absence of any such reason, this Court cannot appreciate the action of respondent in passing the impugned order. Accordingly the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 is quashed. However, since the petitioner was a collector rate employee and if the respondent is still in need and vacancy on a contract basis on the post of Expert Integrated Water Management Project is still exist, they should consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced that earlier engagement was discontinued by them on its own merit in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika