1 2025:CGHC:3605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1095 of 2018 1 - Surendra Kumar Kaushik S/o S/o Shri Dwarika Ram Kaushik, Aged About 42 Years R/o Mitan Chowk, Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Woman And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Woman And Child Development, Block-01, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Woman And Child Development, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Program Officer, Woman And Child Development Department, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 01.12.2017 issued by the Collector, Durg (C.G.) whereby the contractual appointment of the petitioner has been discontinued. -2- 2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of District Child Protection Officer in the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 11.02.2015 pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.02.2014. He would further submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioner were discontinued by the Collector, Durg vide order dated 01.12.2017. He would pray to quash the order being contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’). 3. On the other hand, Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the order dated 01.12.2017 is not stigmatic. He would further submit that one month advance notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the services of the petitioner were discontinued. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 11 (5) of the Rules of 2012 reads as under:- “11.Period of appointment - (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Either of both the parties may terminate the contact appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its place. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the services of the petitioner 3 were discontinued strictly in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Rules of 2012 and the order impugned is not stigmatic, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha