1 (WPS No. 3935 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3935 of 2016 1 - Vidya Lal Singh S/o Ramjit Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste Khairwar, R/o Village Annpara, Block Ramchandrapur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - Devnarayan Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 6 - Uttam Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Shri Ramjit Yadav, Aged About 52 Years Secretary, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, 7 - Rajdev Sharma, S/o Bhukham Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Village Level Executive Bank Representative, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART 2 (WPS No. 3935 of 2016) For Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06.01.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.4, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak on 20.07.2007 on a contractual basis for a period of one year but his services were continued from time to time and the latest tenure was up to 31.03.2017 but in the mid way, on 27.07.2016, without affording due opportunity of hearing and without gaining approval of the Collector, the petitioner’s services have been terminated by passing the impugned order, which is stigmatic in nature and not in accordance with law. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated into service. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4 would support the impugned order. 3 (WPS No. 3935 of 2016) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground that he was working contrary to the provisions contained in the Mahatma Gandhi Rojgar Guarantee Act and was also involved in making false entries in the muster roll. As such, impugned order dated 27.07.2016, being stigmatic in nature is hereby set aside. Even so, the petitioner would not be entitled for reinstatement in service as his contractual service period had already expired on 31.03.2017, however, this will not bar the petitioner to apply for any future employment in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!