Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010051802020 2026:GAU-AS:3376 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1662/2020 JAYANTA HAZARIKA S/O LOKNATH HAZARIKA, R/O VILL. TATIBAHAR, P.O. PADMAPUR, P.S. NARAYANPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784164 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, JURIPAR, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781037 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R DEVI, MR B KOTAKY,MRS. P BORA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNRD, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 06/03/2026 Heard Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner & DPC, MGNREGA, Lakhimpur, terminating the services of the petitioner as Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Contractual) under MGNREGA. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, having satisfied the eligibility criterias for recruitment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak under Lakhimpur District, put up for recruitment by way of issuance of an advertisement, participated in the said selection process. On his selection in the said selection process, the petitioner came to be engaged as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Bhulabori Gaon Panchayat vide an order dated 12.10.2012 on contractual basis. The services of the petitioner was being, thereafter, extended and he was also transferred and posted for such engagement to different Gaon Panchayats from time to time. While the petitioner was working as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Contractual) at Rajgarh Gaon Panchayat under Narayanpur Development Block, with an additional charge of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Dakhin Narayanpur Gaon Panchayat under the same development block, an FIR came to be lodged on 17.08.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur before the Narayanpur Police Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein, that during the physical verification carried out in the matter by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner along with the Project Director, DRDA, Lakhimpur and Executive Engineer, gross irregularities came to be detected in the execution of the scheme, namely, “Construction of bundh cum road via Silikhaguri Road from Phulanikhat High School to Meramukh Sports Association under MGNREGA 2018-2019”. It was also alleged that there occasioned misappropriation of funds. Page No.# 3/8 The petitioner, herein, was one of the named accused in the said FIR. The FIR came to be registered as Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 174/2019 under Sections 120(B)/409/403/420 IPC. The said FIR having been lodged, the petitioner along with the co-accused had approached this Court, by way of filing anticipatory bail applications, being AB No. 2828/2019 and AB No. 2829/2019, praying for granting them Anticipatory Bail. This Court vide order dated 29.08.2019 passed in AB No. 2828/2019 was pleased to pass an interim direction, providing that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the case, they shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- each, with suitable surety each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the conditions as set out, therein. The said criminal case having been instituted against the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner & DPC, MGNREGA, Lakhimpur vide an order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019 proceeded to terminate the petitioner’s contractual engagement. The petitioner projects that being aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam, however, the same not having evoked any response, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner was terminated from his engagement only on a consideration that a criminal case was instituted against him. She submits that a stigma came to be attached to the petitioner on account of the said termination of his services and accordingly, the same was so mandated to be effected after providing to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. She submits that no notices came to be issued to the petitioner before issuance of the said order of termination. Accordingly, she submits that the said order of termination would mandate an interference from this Court. In support of her submissions, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 361/2025 (State of Assam and Others Vs. Ikbal Hussain Laskar) rendered vide judgment and order dated 07.01.2026. She submits that the Page No.# 4/8 said decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and the order of termination of the petitioner would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s engagement was on contractual basis, which was being extended from time to time. He submits that the said termination of the petitioner’s services having occasioned, his services not being extended, no direction would be called upon to be issued by this Court, requiring reinstatement of the petitioner in his services after the petitioner was terminated from his services as the period of his contractual engagement was not extended. In support of his such submissions, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gridco Limited Vs. Sabananda Doloi and Others, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16, to contend that in pure contractual employment, no disciplinary enquiry is called to be held before termination. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak on Contractual basis under MGNREGA. The contractual engagement of the petitioner was being extended from time to time. The petitioner, thereafter, was alleged to have been involved in misappropriation of funds as well as commission of gross irregularities in execution of schemes. The said criminal proceedings against the petitioner having been instituted, the Deputy Commissioner & DPC, MGNREGA Lakhimpur, proceeded to pass an order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019, terminating the contractual service of the petitioner, herein. The said order, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ORDER No.NL/DRDA/PERFO-Report/Con-Eng/512(P)/2016-2017/432 Date:-17/08/2018 28/8/2019 Page No.# 5/8 During inspection of the scheme namely "Construction of bundh cum road from Silikhaguri road via Phulanikhat High School to Mermukh Sport Association under MGNREGA 2018-19" by self and as per report of Executive Engineer, DRDA, Lakhimpur, it was found that volume of work was to the tune of Rs. 68,790/- only in terms of cash against total expenditure incurred Rs. 11,30,936/- as per MIS report. It is observed that i) Volume of work does not at all match with the expenditure incurred. ii) Numbers of fake demands of job were placed against the scheme. iii) Numbers of false Muster Rolls have been generated with attendance of Job Card holders. iv) Siphoning of Govt. money by adopting unfair means and misappropriation thereof. v) Malafide Intension is detected. vi) Misleading of authority. In view of the above Shri Jayanta Hazarika, Gram Rozgar Sahayak (Contractual) under MGNREGA, Dakhin Narayanpur GP of Narayanpur Development Block who has committed the above mentioned misdeeds is hereby terminated from his post. This will come into force with immediate effect. Deputy Commissioner & DPC, MGNREGA. Lakhimpur Memo No. NL/DRDA/PERPO-Report/Con-Eng/512(P)/2016-2017/ 432-A Date:- 17/08/2018 28/8/2019” Page No.# 6/8 8. A perusal of the said order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019 would bring to the forefront that on an inspection being carried out of a scheme, namely, “Construction of bundh cum road from Silikhaguri Road via Phulanikhat High School to Meramukh Sport Association under MGNREGA 2018-2019” and as per the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, DRDA, Lakhimpur, it was found that the work executed was only to the tune of Rs.68,790/-. However, the total expenditure shown to have been incurred for the said scheme was Rs.11,30,936/- as per the MIS report. 9. It was further highlighted in the said order that the numbers of fake demands of job were found to have been placed against the scheme and also false Muster Rolls were seen to have been generated with attendance of Job Card Holders. Accordingly basing on the said conclusions, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. 10. As projected by the learned counsel for the respondents, the services of the petitioner was so engaged on contractual basis and the same was being extended from time to time. 11. The petitioner in the present writ petition has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the contractual appointment of the petitioner was extended and was subsisting on the date of filing the present writ petition, i.e., on 28.02.2020 and was deemed to be not subsisting only on account of termination of his services. 12. It is a settled position of law that this Court in respect of a contractual employee cannot direct for his reinstatement in service beyond the period of the contract. The said position is apparent from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gridco Limited Vs. Sabananda Doloi (supra). The petitioner’s services having been terminated and the contractual period not having been shown to be a subsisting one, this Court in view of the decision in the case of Gridco Limited Vs. Sabananda Doloi (supra) would not be in a position to direct for reinstatement of the petitioner in his service by way of interference with the order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019. Further, the petitioner in the present writ petition has also not demonstrated that the engagement of the petitioner was also covered under the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Page No.# 7/8 13. The provisions of Rule 2(e) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “2. Interpretation- In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, …… (e) “Government Servant” means a person who is a member of a service or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Assam and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government or any State Government or a local or other authority and also any person in the service of a State Government or the Central Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Assam.” 14. A perusal of the provisions of Rule 2(e) of the Rules of 1964 would reveal that the provisions of the said Rule would apply to Government servants who is defined to be a member of a service or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of State of Assam and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government or any State Government or a local or other authority and also any person in the service of a State Government and the Central Government or local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Assam. 15. Further, the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1964 exclude the persons engaged in casual capacity from the purview of the said Rules. 16. Accordingly, it not being demonstrated before this Court that the provisions of the Rules of 1964 was also incorporated in the conditions of service of the contractual engagement of the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is not entitled to claim that before issuance of the order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019, terminating his services a proceeding under the provisions of the said Rules of 1964 was mandated to be so instituted. Page No.# 8/8 17. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ikbal Hussain Laskar (supra). 18. This Court has perused he decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ikbal Hussain Laskar (supra), and finds that the service condition of the employee involved therein, had incorporated within itself the provisions of the Rules of 1964. Accordingly, the provisions of Rules of 1964, having not been complied with before issuance of the termination order of the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded to uphold the order of the learned Single Judge, interfering with the impugned order of termination so issued in respect of the employee involved, therein. 19. In the present case, it not being demonstrated that the provisions of Rules, 1964, was also incorporated in the service condition of the contractual engagement of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Ikbal Hussain Laskar (supra) would not advance the case of the petitioner. 20. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the challenge presented in the present writ petition to the order dated 17.08.2018/28.08.2019 would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant