1 2025:CGHC:34859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1440 of 2021 1 - Ku. Rekha Verma, D/o Shri Revaram Verma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khairee, Post Tumdihboat, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Program Coordinator, Rojgar Guarantee Scheme, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gram Panchayat, Kopedih Through Its Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kopedih, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Shri Sudeep Verma, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “I. quash/set aside the order dated 4/2/2021 (removal order) and 8/2/21 (so far as it relates to village Kopedih) passed by the respondent no. 3. II. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Rojgar Sahayak alongwith full back wages and all other consequential benefit and other benefit to the petitioner. III. direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to petitioner case. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak under respondents No.3 & 4 vide order dated 11.11.2009. He would submit that by order dated 4.2.2021, the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.3. It is also contended that the impugned order is stigmatic, as it contains various allegations against the petitioner. He would contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and no enquiry was conducted prior to termination. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 would submit that an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity. He would contend that although the petitioner 3 was a contractual employee, the respondents were under obligation to provide an opportunity of hearing after submission of the enquiry report. 4. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the order of termination dated 4.2.2021 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, respondents No.3 & 4 are directed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any decision with regard to termination of services. The Competent Authority is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, the authority concerned would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi