1 CGHC010208672026 2026:CGHC:34792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4428 of 2026 Jeevan Giddha S/o Peter Giddha Aged About 49 Years Working As Driver At Thakur Pyarelal State Institute Of Panchayat And Rural Development Nimora, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Thakur Pyarelal State Institute Of Panchayat And Rural Development Nimora Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contractual basis and one of the conditions of his appointment stipulates that his services can be terminated only after giving one month's prior notice. It is contended that though the petitioner's contractual engagement was renewed vide order dated RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.07 17:51:10 +0530 2 10.03.2026, the said renewal order has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) without adhering to the aforesaid condition, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The petition is based on the grievance that the cancellation of the renewal order was effected without prior notice. 2. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order is not an order terminating the services of the petitioner, but is merely an order cancelling the renewal of his contractual engagement. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents were well within their authority to pass the impugned order and no interference is warranted. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a Driver on contractual basis and his contractual engagement had been renewed from time to time. The renewal order dated 10.03.2026 was subsequently cancelled by the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P/1). 5. A perusal of the terms and conditions governing the contractual appointment of the petitioner reveals that the services of the petitioner could be terminated only after giving one month's prior notice. Admittedly, before passing the impugned order cancelling the renewal of the petitioner's contractual engagement, no such notice was issued to the petitioner. The respondents have also not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 3 6. Once the renewal order dated 10.03.2026 had been issued and acted upon, the petitioner acquired a right to continue in service in terms thereof. If the respondents intended to discontinue the contractual engagement of the petitioner or withdraw the benefit of renewal already granted, they were required to adhere to the conditions governing the contract as well as the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, having been passed without complying with the contractual requirement of one month's prior notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. 7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with the conditions prescribed under the appointment order. In the event the respondents propose to discontinue the contractual engagement of the petitioner or cancel the renewal granted in his favour, they shall first issue one month's prior notice to the petitioner in terms of the conditions of his contractual appointment and thereafter pass a order in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul