1 2025:CGHC:60244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13593 of 2025 • Prakash Shrivastava S/o Shri Indradev Prashad Shrivastava Aged About 36 Years R/o Sargipal Ward, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Women And Child Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgar 3. Collector Dantewada, District - South Bastar (Dantewada) Chhattisgarh 4. District Program Officer Department Of Women And Child Development, District - South Bastar (Dantewada) Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. The petitioner who was working as District Child Protection Officer on contractual basis has filed this Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming his reinstatement in pursuance of his acquittal 2 in Criminal case registered against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 294 and 323 of IPC in connection with Crime No. 153 of 2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would, submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as District Child Protection Officer on contractual basis on 27-4-2015 for one year and thereafter his contractual period was extended from 5-5-2018 to 5-5-2019. In the meanwhile, complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 18-6-2018 and subsequently FIR was registered on the basis of which the aforesaid offence was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested on 2-72018 and thereafter he was terminated from services on 4-7-2018. She would further submit that the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges levelled against him vide order dated 7-3-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondgaon, District Kondagaon in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2018. It has also been contended that the one more case was also lodged against the petitioner by same person wherein criminal charge for offence punishable under Section 506(B) of IPC was registered as Crime No. 33 of 2019 and in that case also the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charge levelled against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Bastar, Dantewada vide order dated 29- 10-2021 in Criminal Case No. 97 of 2019. Thus, she would submit that since the contractual period of the petitioner was extended for one year from 5-5-2018 to 5-5-2019, the petitioner may be allowed to work for remaining period or salary be paid to him. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions and would submit that the the petitioner was a contractual employee and his contractual period by efflux of time has lost its significance as two criminal cases were pending against him. Thus, neither the petitioner is entitled to get any extension period or salary and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a contractual employee and his contractual period was extended from 5-5-2018 to 5-5-2019 for one year. Meanwhile two criminal cases were registered against him wherein he was acquitted and in the termination order also reason was assigned that he was involved in criminal cases. Since contractual period of the petitioner was lapsed, he cannot be allowed to be reinstated in service but considering the fact that the the petitioner has already been acquitted from the criminal cases, it is directed that if the petitioner files a representation for grant of contractual employment before the respondent authority, the respondent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced from the fact that he was terminated on account of criminal case in which he has already been acquitted. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.12.12 18:11:21 +0530