1 2025:CGHC:58752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13521 of 2025 1. Smt. Ranu Nehru D/o Shri Jain Lal Nehru Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Khamharmuda, Post- Jhalap, P.S.- Patewa District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Nrega Vikas Bhawan, Third Floor, Sector 19, North Block Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, application for amendment in the cause title. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to typographical mistake in the cause title respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 have been written as Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.12.19 11:17:34 +0530 2 Panchayat Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh whereas the necessary party in the case is Collector, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh and would pray for allowing the present application. 3. On due consideration, the same is allowed and necessary amendment be carried out itself in the cause title during the course of today itself. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 18.05.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.5, i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), whereby the services of the petitioner as Gram Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Torla, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) have been terminated. 5. Brief facts for disposal of this writ petition, are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgaar Sahayak ("GRS") on contractual basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (“MGNREGA”) in Gram Panchayat Torla, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) on 30.08.2013. The petitioner joined the said post on 05.09.2013. The appointment was initially for the period of one year, however, looking to the capability and work of the petitioner, his service period was extended by the respondent authorities. The petitioner was posted as Gram Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Torla, Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) and was carrying out his work to the best of 3 his ability and there were no complaints from the Gram Panchayat Torla regarding his work or behaviour since his initial appointment. On 17.12.2019, respondent No. 5 issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is not interested in village panchayat scheme and negligence in discharging his work. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. 6. The respondents without considering the reply vide order dated 18.05.2020 has not extended the contractual period and passed the order of termination. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered in the judgment passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 8212/2023 in case of Yaad Das Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 03.01.2025. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned State counsel vehemently argued that in each and every point of time, the petitioner has been given notice as well as given opportunity to rectify himself and to do the work in accordance with law, however, it has not been given heed by the petitioner, as such, respondents No. 4 and 5 are having no other option except to remove the petitioner from services, which is contractual in nature. It has been contended that in a contractual appointment, petitioner is not required to be given opportunity of hearing, which is mentioned in the appointment order itself that he can be removed from service while giving one month’s prior notice or one month’s salary. It is further contended that since the appointment is of contractual nature and the impugned order does not show that it is a stigmatic order, as such, the order impugned has rightly been passed and nothing requires to be interfered with. 4 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. Considering the facts of the case and judgment passed by this Court in case of Yaad Das Sahu (Supra), the writ petition is also allowed in the same terms by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and by quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2020. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to hold proper inquiry, if so advised. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish