1 2025:CGHC:59549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7621 of 2023 1 - Devendra Jhadi S/o. Late Shri Jhadi Pandu, Aged About 46 Years R/o. Qr. No.49, Rajendra Nagar, Ward No.15, Dantewada, P.S., Tahsil And Post Dantewada, District - South Baster Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Mission Director, Swatch Bharat Mission (Rural), Vikas Bhawan, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Baster Division, Bastar Jagdalpur, District - Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, Office Of Collectorate, South Bastar District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dantewada, District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dantewada, Geedam, Kuakonda, Katekalyan, District - South Bastar Dantewada, ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Executive Engineer/member Secretary, District Water And Sanition Committee, South Bastar Dantewada, District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the order dated 11.08.23 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.5 and direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service and continue as per circular envisages. 10.3. Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case in brief :- The petitioner was initially appointed on 01.10.2009 on a contractual basis in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Dantewada, and his contractual engagement was periodically extended by official orders issued by the Executive 3 Engineer-cum-Member Secretary, District Water and Sanitation Committee, on 29.02.2012, and subsequently by respondent No. 4 on 30.03.2013. The petitioner continuously discharged his duties from 01.10.2009 to 11.08.2023, rendering more than fourteen years of service; however, without affording him any fair or reasonable opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 5 issued a termination order dated 11.08.2023 in purported exercise of powers under Section 11(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Employment) Rules, 2012, thereby terminating his services. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no show- cause notice, departmental enquiry, or relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing granted. The termination is further contrary to the terms of the petitioner’s appointment, the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, and the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965, which were not adhered to before passing the impugned order. Aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary termination, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate directions for reinstatement and protection of his service rights. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination order issued by respondent No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary, without 4 jurisdiction, and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the respondents failed to follow the due process mandated under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Employment) Rules, 2012, particularly while invoking Section 11(5). The impugned action has been taken in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or communication of any adverse material was ever furnished to the petitioner, despite his legal entitlement to procedural fairness. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5 lacked authority to terminate the petitioner without adherence to such mandatory safeguards, especially when the law expressly requires compliance with the rules of natural justice, which exist to ensure procedural fairness and correct decision-making. The sudden issuance of the termination order, without prior notice and in disregard of applicable government circulars, renders the action arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner submits that the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the decision in Dev Dutt, apply with full force, as any adverse material such as entries in the ACR/PAR must be communicated to the employee before being relied upon, failing which the same cannot be considered to his detriment. In view of these glaring legal infirmities, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondents categorically and specifically deny all adverse allegations made by the petitioner against the State authorities in the instant petition. It is submitted that, by order dated 19.09.2017 issued by the Collector and President, District Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) Prabandhan Samiti, District Panchayat, Dantewada, the petitioner was appointed as District Coordinator on a purely contractual basis subject to specific terms and conditions, including Clause 10, which expressly provided that the contractual engagement could be terminated by either party upon giving one month’s prior notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Although the petitioner’s contract was extended periodically, during the last tenure his conduct was found unsatisfactory as he repeatedly failed to comply with the directions of higher authorities despite oral instructions to improve. Consequently, respondent No. 5 initiated appropriate proceedings and, in exercise of powers under Rule 11(5) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, lawfully brought the petitioner’s contractual engagement to an end by paying him one month’s salary, as reflected in the termination order dated 11.08.2023 and supporting documents, including the notification dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure R/1) and the relevant note-sheet with proof of payment through PFMS dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure R/2). It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a purely contractual appointee with no 6 vested right to the post, is governed entirely by the terms of his appointment, and the present case constitutes termination simpliciter, for which no opportunity of hearing is required in law, particularly when the termination is strictly in accordance with the contractual conditions themselves. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost care. 6. From the petitioner’s initial appointment order dated 01.10.2009, it appears that he was appointed purely on contractual basis for a period of 11 months, with monthly remuneration of ₹12,000/-. His contract was extended on 29.02.2012 with revised remuneration of ₹15,000/-, and again on 30.03.2013, enhancing the remuneration to ₹21,875/-. Thereafter, by order dated 27.03.2020, his services were extended up to 31.03.2023, and further by order dated 03.05.2023, he would have been continuing up to 31.03.2025 with remuneration of ₹40,000/-. From perusal of Annexure P/11 dated 17.05.2023, Condition No. 10 explicitly provides that either party may terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu thereof. 7. The termination order dated 11.08.2023 demonstrates that one month’s salary was duly paid to the petitioner, satisfying the contractual requirement. The record further reveals that 7 although an earlier letter dated 27.04.2023 was issued, a fresh extension order was subsequently issued on 17.05.2023, and the contractual terms therein, especially Clause 10, govern the service conditions. When the contract itself authorises termination by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof, and the respondents have complied with that condition, no illegality or procedural infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, no adjudication on alleged violation of natural justice is required in a case of termination simpliciter strictly governed by contractual terms. However, it is also evident that the petitioner has rendered long and uninterrupted service of more than fourteen years and has gained substantial experience which may be useful to the department. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned termination order dated 11.08.2023 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The respondents have acted in accordance with Clause 10 of the contractual conditions and also following the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012. However, considering the long period of service rendered by the petitioner and the experience gained by him, it is observed that the respondent authorities may consider engaging the petitioner in future, if work is available, under the Jila Swachh Bharat Mission or 8 under the Swachh Bharat Mission schemes of the Government of India, strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policies. 9. Accordingly, with these observation(s) and direction(s) this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena