1 2025:CGHC:30611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1857 of 2020 Arjun Singh Rathore S/o Shri Sanat Kumar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bithaldah, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 6 - Gram Panchayat- Navaganw Vainkat Through Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Navaganw Vainkat, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. AK Yadav, Mr. Anurag Pandey & Mr. Navneet Yadav, Advocates For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondents 3 to 6 : Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. YS Thakur, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 04.7.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.07 16:39:12 +0530 2 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to continue work at present place of appointment as Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat – Navaganw Vainkat in Janpad Panchayat Lormi District – Mungeli (CG) 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court hold the action of the Respondent in not considering the Case of the Petitioner is Arbitrary & Capricious and in a Sheer contravention of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from 01-03-2019 to 31-12-2019 unpaid period with interest. 10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petition as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis, vide Order dated 02.11.2010 (Annexure-P/1) and his place of posting was at Gram Panchayat Navaganw Vainkat, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, with effect from 02.11.2010 till February 2011, which was extended from time to time. Subsequently, in December 2019, he was restrained to continue on the said post and removed from his employment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking relief, as has been prayed in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been removed from the post of Rojgar Sahayak without conducting any 3 departmental enquiry or without providing due opportunity of hearing to him. As such, principle of natural justice has not been followed by the respondents and without any written order, he has been removed on the basis of oral instruction only. In this regard, he placed reliance in the case of K. Ragupathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 346. He further submits that since termination of the petitioner has been made without following principle of natural justice, therefore, the same is illegal. Hence, relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him. 4. Respondents No.1 & 2/State has filed its reply. Respondents No.3, 4 & 5 have also filed their joint reply. 5. Learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that employment of the petitioner was extended every year till 2019, however, he was found negligent towards his duty. Many times, he was found absent from his duty and many times he violated instructions issued by the higher authority, to which, he was given more than 17 notices from December 2017 to till 2019. Last notice was served to him on 02.5.2019 (AnnexureR1/4) with clear direction that, if he fails to submit his reply, then his contractual appointment shall be terminated as per Contractual Appointment Rules 2012. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had never given any reply to the notices served to him. Even, he did not submit his reply to the last notice (Annexure-R1/4), therefore, vide Order dated 31.7.2019 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, contractual appointment of the petitioner and other defaulty Rojgar Sahayak were not extended for further period, as per Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules, 2012’). Learned counsel further submits that by issuing various show-cause notices to the petitioner, due opportunity of hearing was provided, but he never replied to those 4 notices, hence, it cannot be said that due opportunity of hearing has not been provided, rather the petitioner was found to be negligent towards his duty, therefore, having considered the totality of the facts, his employment was not extend after 2019. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) on 02.11.2010 vide Annexure-P/1 till February 2011 on the post of Rojgar Sahayak. Though document with regard to every year extension of employment of the petitioner till 2019 has not been filed, but the respondents also have conceded the fact that every year petitioner’s employment was extended till 2019. 8. The respondents have filed notices dated 07.12.2017, 23.12.2017, 31.01.2018, 21.01.2018, 22.6.2018, 22.10.2018, 16.11.2018, 28.3.2019 (R- 1/1 colly) served to the petitioner and last notice was served to the petitioner on 02.5.2019 (Annexure-R-1/4) to submit his explanation, else, appropriate action shall be taken against him under the Rule 2012. The petitioner has not filed any explanation to the notices served to him. Despite serving a number of notices, not submitting reply by the petitioner shows that how negligent he was towards his duty and instruction given by the authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. Even, in spite of clear instructions given in the last two notices, he did not file his reply, therefore, vide Order dated 31.7.2019, the authority has declined to extend his employment beyond 2019. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, judgment relied by the petitioner also could not help him, as despite issuance of repeated notices, he never 5 replied to it. Further it is not a case of removal of the petitioner from employment, rather it is a case of non-extension of period of contract, due to sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner towards his duty, as has been discussed above. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, hence, the same is dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini