1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5465 of 2016 1 - Vidya Mishra D/o Shri K. K. Mishra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Behind Gurudwara, Jamtpara, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women And Child Welfare Development, Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Woman And Child Welfare Development, Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 4 - District Programme Officer, District Women And Child Development, Officer, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17/10/2025 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed claiming for the following three reliefs: BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.10.17 16:42:01 +0530 2 (i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the advertisement dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-8). (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow/permit the petitioner to work as Protection Officer till the regular appointment on the post is made. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of increased salary from the order dated 09.10.2015 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner and further please to direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner on increased rate. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Protection Officer on contract basis on 10.09.2014 for a period of one year under the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (in short “the Act of 2005”). Her contract period was extended from time to time. Vide notification dated 09.10.2015, the respondent No.2 increased salary of contract employees working under the Act of 2005. The petitioner made representations (Annexures P-5 & P-6) to the respondent authorities claiming for the increased salary & arrears which have not been considered till date. Aggrieved, the respondents issued an advertisement dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-8) for fresh appointment of Protection Officer on contract basis and vide order dated 27.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) the contract period of petitioner was extended only for 3 months or 3 till the new appointment is made whichever is earlier. Hence, the petition. 3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is a contractual employee discharging the duties of a Protection Officer since 2014. Since then the petitioner has been discharging her duties continuously and uninterruptedly with utmost sincerity without any complaint. He submits that the respondents have now issued an advertisement for fresh appointment of Protection Officer on contract basis and are trying to replace the petitioner with another contractual employee which is illegal and against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292. 4. On the contrary, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was served a notice by the Department on 25.11.2016 for her misconduct/misbehaviour with the staff posted there. Even otherwise, after the contract period of the petitioner comes to an end, she does not have any right in her favour. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as Reliefs No.1 & 2 are concerned, conscious of the fact that the status of the petitioner is that of a contractual employee nonetheless the respondents would still not be permitted to replace the petitioner by another contractual arrangement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hargurpratap Singh (supra) while discussing this issue, held that the displace of one 4 ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement is not at all appropriate and observed as under: “3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly.” 6. In light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents would not be permitted to replace the petitioner by way of another contractual employee. If the respondents want, they can go for filling up the said post by way of regular recruitment applying the recruitment rules which are applicable in the department if any. As long as the respondents intend to continue contractual arrangement, the petitioner shall be continued. Hence, the impugned advertisement deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. 7. As regards the notice dated 25.11.2016 regarding misbehavior/misconduct of the petitioner, the interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2016 in favour of 5 the petitioner. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 25.11.2016 regarding the petitioner's misconduct. In connection with the notice dated 25.11.2016 issued regarding the petitioner's misconduct/misbehavior, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner by order dated 04.10.2016. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 25.11.2016 regarding the petitioner's misconduct. However, the notice does not contain any material information as to how, with whom, or in what manner the petitioner had misbehaved, and only makes a general allegation of misconduct against the petitioner. 8. So far as Relief No. 3 for a direction to the respondents for increased/enhanced salary and arrears is concerned, the respondent authorities concerned are directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner in this regard (Annexures P-5 & P-6) strictly in accordance with rules, regulations and the circulars governing the field, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed in part. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai