1 2026:CGHC:10421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6908 of 2019 1 - Samay Lal Singh S/o Shri Jagsai Aged About 42 Years Working On The Post Of Rozgar Sahayak, R/o Village - Senduri, Post - Parshurampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Collector Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ramanuj Nagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 5 - Village Panchayat Senduri, Through - The Sarpanch, Police Station - Ramanuj Nagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri VK Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 27/02/2026 1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 1.7.2019 by which his contract employment has not been extended on the ground KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.28 16:34:16 +0530 2 that during the period from April, 2019 to June, 2019, his work was not found satisfactory. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Though in the present case the petitioner’s services have not been extended, however, it is held that the impugned order dated 1.7.2019 (Annexure-P/1) is not a stigmatic order. It is observed that in future, the petitioner would be at liberty to make an application and the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the impugned order dated 1.7.2019, which is non-stigmatic. 6. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve