1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2624 of 2021 Khurshid Ansari S/o Abjeet Ansari Aged About 31 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Karwan, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, 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., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattigarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer Janpad Panchayat Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Technical Assistant Gram Panchayat Karwan, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur , Police Station Jainagar Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.12.09 13:51:07 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 and 2 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 3, 5 and 6 Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. The following reliefs has been claimed in this writ petition. a. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. b. That this Hon’ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur, District: Surajpur (C.G.) c. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak with the respondent No. 3 on 27.08.2023 (Annexure-P/8) thereafter he was performing his duties with all sincerity and honesty. Suddenly, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned communication dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure- P/1) which is a notice issued to the petitioner stating therein that his annual confidential reports is not up to the mark as prescribed in Clause 13(iii) of C.G. Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules 2012, hence his contractual employment would not be extended. He submits that the impugned show cause notice for termination of contractual employee was issued at the strength that his ACR was not 3 up to the mark. He submits that before issuing of such notice, the said ACR has not been communicated to the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be relied upon for issuance of Annexure-P/1. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of WPS No. 4689 of 2019 (Dev Singh Parmar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) order dated 13.12.2024. Therefore, he submits that impugned order may be set aside. 3. Ms. Shailja Shukla, submits that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Gurudev I Sharan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 submits that the appointment of the petitioner was purely a contractual one. As his ACR was not found up to the mark as required under the rules of 2012, a decision has been taken to not to continue his contract appointment. However, he is not in a position to dispute as to whether before issuance the impugned order, the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated to the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the impugned notice indicates that the ACR of the petitioner was not found up to the mark as per rules 2012 and on the basis of that, his contractual appointment was not extended. Apart from this there is no other ground mentioned, as to whether any other allegations are leveled against the petitioner or not. The law in this regard is no longer res integra that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “36. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should 4 have communicated the 'good' entry of 1993-94 to the appellant so that he could have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non-communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent and hence violative of natural justice.” 7. Almost identical issue has also come up in Dev Singh Parmar (supra) and in Paragraph 13 and 14, this Hon’ble Court has observed as under: “13. From the aforementioned facts and perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012, it is appearing that it was mandatory upon the respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioner. In the present case, the respondents have not brought on record that the petitioner was supplied the copy of ACRs time to time of each year. The order of non- extension of his services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the non-extension is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioner of negligence in discharging his services and remaining absent from service. 14.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 4 erred in not extending the period of service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the letter dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure P/2) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved with the Respondent No. 3 & 4 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and further, to take decision for the continuation of services of the petitioner.” 8. In the opinion of this Court, as the ACR of the petitioner which forms the basis of issuance of notice (Annexure-P/1), has not been supplied 5 to the petitioner to put forth his case, the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Consequence to follow. 9. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Saurabh