1 2026:CGHC:11985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 504 of 2023 Akhilesh Kumar Singh S/o Tikeshwar Singh Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Programmer At MGNREGA, Janpad Panchayat Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.), R/o Village Bhalu Kachhar, Post Bargawan, Police Station - Darima, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Mahatma Gandi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector/ District Program Coordinator (MGNREGA) Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Program Officer MGNREGA, Janpad Panchayat Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.17 17:42:41 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan and Mr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocates For Respondents No.1 and 2/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 to 7 : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12.03.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 07.09.2021 and seeks quashment thereof along with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus setting aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure P/6), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstant the petitioner with all consequential benefits, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Programmer on contractual 3 basis vide order dated 02.11.2016 and was posted at Janpad Panchayat Mainpat, District Surguja. His appointment was governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2012 (in short “Rules, 2012”) for a period of three years and, upon satisfactory yearly appraisal of his work, he was allowed to continue in service even thereafter. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.09.2018, the petitioner was attached to Janpad Panchayat Udaipur due to vacancy arising on account of maternity leave of the concerned officer, where he joined on 10.09.2018 and continued to discharge his duties. 3. During the course of his service, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 19.07.2021 alleging delay in payment of wages under MGNAREGA due to improper operation of the account in the computer system. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 26.07.2021 explaining that the delay occurred because two accounts had been opened by the Employment Assistant owing to duplicate job cards of certain labourers. 4. However, without properly considering the petitioner’s explanation, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 discontinuing his services on the ground of adverse remarks in his confidential report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.03.2022 requesting reinstatement in service with an undertaking to improve his work, but no favourable 4 action was taken, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as the same has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that before discontinuing the services of the petitioner, no regular enquiry was conducted and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Though certain show-cause notices were issued alleging delay in discharge of official duties, the authorities proceeded to pass the impugned order without fairly considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged delay in payment of wages under the MGNREGA scheme occurred due to a technical issue relating to duplication of job cards and opening of multiple bank accounts of labourers by the Employment Assistant. Owing to such discrepancies in the accounts provided by the concerned Rojgar Sahayaks, the payments to the labourers could not be processed in time. It is therefore contended that the alleged lapse cannot be attributed to any deliberate negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner. However, the explanation furnished by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 26.07.2021 was not objectively considered by the authority while passing the impugned order. 5 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order refers to adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report/ACR of the petitioner, which allegedly reflected his performance as “average”. However, the said adverse entry was never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to submit his explanation or representation against such remarks. Learned counsel submits that reliance on an uncommunicated adverse entry in the ACR to the detriment of the petitioner is legally impermissible and vitiates the impugned action. He contends that even though the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Programmer under the MGNREGA scheme on 02.11.2016 and his contract was renewed from time to time, the impugned order entails serious civil consequences and therefore adherence to the principles of natural justice was mandatory. 7. Learned counsel lastly submits that even if an employee is engaged on contractual basis, the authority cannot resort to arbitrary discontinuation of service on the basis of allegations relating to misconduct or unsatisfactory performance without adhering to the basic safeguards of natural justice. Where the termination or discontinuation is founded on allegations which cast a stigma or entail adverse civil consequences, the concerned employee must be made aware of the material relied upon and must be given a meaningful opportunity to submit his explanation. It is therefore contended that the impugned action of the 6 respondents, which relies upon alleged adverse performance and other imputations without conducting any enquiry or affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, stands vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is misconceived insofar as the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, inasmuch as no action of the State authorities is under challenge in the instant petition nor any specific relief has been sought against them. It is contended that the petitioner’s grievance, if any, is essentially against respondent No.4 – District Programme Coordinator, MNREGA, Ambikapur, who is a separate authority competent to defend its action. Therefore, the State submits that the petition, so far as it relates to the State, is liable to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2012 and his continuation in service was subject to yearly assessment of his performance through the Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim continuation or renewal of his contractual appointment as a 7 matter of right. He further submits that the performance of the petitioner during the relevant period, particularly for the year 2020–21, was found to be unsatisfactory. It is contended that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties under the MGNREGA scheme and several show cause notices were issued to him from time to time pointing out deficiencies in his work. However, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed to improve his performance, which ultimately resulted in recording adverse remarks in his Confidential Report. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in view of the poor performance of the petitioner and the recommendation made by the reporting authority, the competent authority decided not to extend the contractual engagement of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 was issued discontinuing his services. It is contended that the said action is in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2012 and the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment. He lastly submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual and subject to assessment of his yearly performance, the decision not to renew his contract cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 11. By filing a rejoinder-affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by respondents No.4 to 7 regarding delay and laches is misconceived. It is contended that the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 was served upon the petitioner belatedly and thereafter the petitioner made several efforts to approach the competent authorities seeking reconsideration of the order. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 03.03.2022 requesting reinstatement in service. However, as no action was taken on the said representation and all efforts of the petitioner went in vain, he was constrained to file the present writ petition on 12.01.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a tribal community and is a resident of a backward area of Surguja Division and considerable time was consumed in arranging legal assistance, collecting documents and arranging resources to approach this Court. Thus, the alleged delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and stands sufficiently explained. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the justification put forth by the respondents regarding discontinuation of the petitioner’s services on the basis of adverse remarks in the Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2020–21 is wholly untenable. It is contended that the said adverse remarks were never communicated to the petitioner and the respondents themselves have admitted that the ACR/PAR was not required to be communicated to a contractual employee. It is submitted that 9 non-communication of adverse entries is violative of the principles of natural justice and such uncommunicated remarks cannot be used to the detriment of the petitioner. It is further contended that the show cause notices issued to the petitioner only referred to certain technical errors in online entries relating to MGNREGA payments and the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not objectively considered. Therefore, the ground of poor performance reflected in the confidential report appears to be an afterthought and the impugned order of termination is arbitrary and disproportionate. 13. Reliance is placed upon the ruling rendered in Mahendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Others, WPS No. 7484 of 2023, decided on 02.12.2025 by this Court, wherein it has been held that an uncommunicated adverse entry in the ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of an employee. 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5 and Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that even contractual employees are entitled to the protection of principles of natural justice when an adverse action affecting their civil rights is taken. 10 15. Further reliance is placed on Krishnadutt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 129, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when an administrative decision is based upon any report or material adverse to an employee, the same must be furnished to him before passing any adverse order. 16. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 17. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti) Rules, 2012 and that his continuation was subject to periodic assessment of performance. It is equally well settled that a contractual employee does not have an indefeasible right to seek renewal or continuation in service. However, it is now firmly entrenched in service jurisprudence that even in cases of contractual engagement, the State and its instrumentalities are bound to act in a fair, reasonable and non- arbitrary manner, particularly when the action taken entails civil consequences or carries a stigma affecting the reputation and future prospects of the employee. 18. In the present case, though the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 is couched in the form of discontinuation of contractual service, a deeper scrutiny of the record reveals that the same is founded upon allegations relating to unsatisfactory performance, 11 negligence in discharge of duties and adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner. Thus, the order is not a simpliciter non-renewal of contract but is stigmatic in nature, as it attributes deficiencies in the conduct and performance of the petitioner. 19. Once the action of the employer is founded upon allegations which cast a stigma or are punitive in nature, the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice becomes indispensable. In such circumstances, the employer is under an obligation to conduct a fair enquiry, disclose the material sought to be relied upon and afford an effective opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. 20. In the case at hand, it is evident that although certain show cause notices were issued to the petitioner alleging delay in processing payments under the MGNREGA scheme, the explanation furnished by the petitioner attributing such delay to duplication of job cards and opening of multiple accounts by the concerned functionaries has not been objectively considered by the respondents. There is nothing on record to indicate that any proper enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correctness of the explanation or to fix responsibility upon the actual erring officials. 21. More importantly, the impugned order heavily relies upon adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2020–21. Admittedly, such adverse 12 entry was never communicated to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents that communication of ACR/PAR is not required in the case of contractual employees cannot be accepted, as it strikes at the very root of fairness in administrative action. 22. It is a settled principle of law that any adverse entry in the service record of an employee, which is sought to be relied upon to his detriment, must be communicated to him so as to enable him to make an effective representation. Non-communication of such adverse remarks renders the action based thereon arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, in the present case, has been deprived of an opportunity to contest or explain the adverse assessment of his performance, which has ultimately formed the basis of his discontinuation. 23. Further, the material on record indicates that the alleged deficiencies in performance were, at least in part, attributable to systemic or technical issues in the implementation of the MGNREGA scheme, particularly relating to duplication of job cards and discrepancies in bank accounts of labourers. In the absence of any proper enquiry to establish wilful negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, fastening such consequences upon him appears to be wholly unjustified. 24. This Court also finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reliance placed upon uncommunicated adverse entries and undisclosed material vitiates 13 the decision-making process. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner clearly mandates that any material adverse to an employee must be disclosed to him before it is used against him and that even a contractual employee is entitled to the protection of principles of natural justice when an action affecting his civil rights is taken. 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 suffers from multiple legal infirmities, namely—(i) it is founded upon stigmatic considerations without holding any regular enquiry; (ii) it relies upon adverse entries in the Confidential Report which were never communicated to the petitioner; (iii) it reflects non-application of mind to the explanation furnished by the petitioner; and (iv) it is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 26. The objection raised by the respondents regarding delay and laches also does not merit acceptance. The petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay by stating that he had made representations before the authorities and, being a resident of a remote tribal area, faced practical difficulties in approaching this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay cannot be said to be inordinate or unexplained so as to non-suit the petitioner on this ground alone. 27. This Court also finds support from recent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasizing that the State, being a model 14 employer, cannot resort to arbitrary discontinuation of long-serving contractual employees merely on the strength of the contractual label. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated arbitrary disengagement of long-serving employees and held that prolonged ad-hoc or contractual engagement cannot be used as a device to deny constitutional protections, and any such action must withstand the test of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well- established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in 15 Jaggo v. Union of India, in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to 16 employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary 17 employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 28. Similarly, in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 95, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that repeated extensions of contractual engagement coupled with continuous service create a legitimate expectation of fair treatment and that abrupt discontinuation, without adherence to fairness and reasonableness, by observing as under :- “Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants’ engagement was likely to be granted. 18 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints. 13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State’s decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants’ experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long- standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted 19 repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between 20 appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional 21 protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary,inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.” 29. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner, being a contractual employee, had no right to continuation and therefore no procedural safeguards were required, cannot be accepted in its absolute form. While it is true that a contractual employee cannot claim renewal as a matter of right, it is equally well settled that where the discontinuation is founded on allegations of unsatisfactory performance or carries a stigma, the employer is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. 30. The judgments relied upon by the respondents to contend that a contractual employee has no vested right to continuation are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the discontinuation was simpliciter on account of expiry of contractual tenure or administrative exigency, without any imputation of misconduct or adverse performance. In the present case, however, the 22 discontinuation is not a mere non-renewal but is founded upon allegations of negligence and adverse entries in the Confidential Report, which undoubtedly cast a stigma upon the petitioner. 31. Furthermore, in the present case, the impugned action is vitiated by reliance on uncommunicated adverse entries and by failure to afford an effective opportunity of hearing. Such foundational defects were neither present nor under consideration in the judgments relied upon by the respondents. Therefore, the said authorities do not advance the case of the respondents and are clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 is vitiated both on facts and in law. The action of the respondents, though ostensibly presented as a mere discontinuation of contractual engagement, is in substance founded upon allegations touching the petitioner’s performance and conduct, thereby rendering the same stigmatic in nature. Such an action, which entails serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner’s livelihood and future prospects, could not have been taken without strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The failure of the respondents to conduct any fair or regular enquiry, the non-consideration of the petitioner’s explanation in its proper perspective, and most significantly, the reliance upon uncommunicated adverse entries in the Confidential 23 Report/Performance Appraisal Report, collectively demonstrate a clear arbitrariness and non-application of mind in the decision- making process. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained as it falls foul of the settled legal principles governing administrative fairness and transparency. 33. Accordingly, the order dated 07.09.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits flowing in favour of the petitioner. As a natural corollary, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post on which he was working prior to issuance of the impugned order, with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if so advised, by following due process and by affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 34. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 35. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh