1 2025:CGHC:61199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9307 of 2022 1 - Salil Pandey S/o Motilal Pandey Aged About 43 Years Post Block Program Manager At Community Health Centre, District- Kawardha Kabirdham, R/o Qr. No. 01, Hospital Colony Chc, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mission Director National Health Mission, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Director National Rural Health Mission, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Medical Officer Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 1,2 & 4/ State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. For respondent No. 3 : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Adv (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on contract basis on the post of Block Program Manager and was posted at Community Health Centre, Pandariya, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham. He was appointed sometime in the year 2011 and continued to work with sincerity with the respondent. He submits that without giving opportunity of hearing, on 29/09/2017 (Annexure P/2), the services of the petitioner PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.17 10:48:47 +0530 2 was terminated. He submits that vide impugned order, services of nine contract employees were terminated, out of which one Md. Arshad Khan had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.8967/2023 and termination order of Md. Arshad Khan was set aside by this Court vide order dated 19/09/2025 reserving liberty in favour of the respondent to proceed against the petitioner therein after following principles of natural justice. Therefore, he submits that in the case in hand also, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the order of this Court in WPS No.8967/2023 and prays for setting aside the impugned order. 2. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner was a contractual employee and therefore, his services were terminated, however, he is not in a position to dispute that the impugned order in respect to one employee namely Md. Arshad Khan was set aside by this Court in WPS No.8967/2023. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. None of the parties were able to dispute that before passing impugned order, any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to put forth his case. It is also not disputed that one of the employees whose name is also mentioned in the impugned order had filed a writ petition which was allowed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted. Thus facts and circumstances of WPS No.8967/2023 appears to be identical to the case in hand. In the aforesaid case, relying upon various authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court set aside the termination order of the 3 petitioner therein. In the light of above, placing reliance upon the aforesaid order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be set aside and is hereby set aside with respect to the petitioner. Needless to say that respondent No.3 would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing. Consequence to follow. 6. With the above observation, this petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul