1 CGHC010246802026 2026:CGHC:37838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4959 of 2026 Miss Kalpana Dewangan D/o- Shri A R. Dewangan, Aged About 43 Years Working As Block Project Manager At Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, Zilla Panchayat Korea, District- Korea (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mission Director, C G S R L M Office Of Development Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Second Floor Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District- Korea (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Korea, District- Korea (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) 6 - Miss Komal Tiwari, Presently Working As Regional Coordinator At Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.25 10:34:08 +0530 2 For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.06.2026 whereby the contractual assignment of the petitioner on the post of Block Project Manager has been terminated w.e.f. 08.07.2026 on the ground that her service was not liable to be extended looking to her ACR/PAR. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 10.06.2026 whereby additional charge of Block Project Manager has been assigned to respondent No.6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Project Manager on contractual basis and thereafter her services were extended from time to time, however, all of a sudden by the order impugned her contractual assignment has been brought to an end. He would further submit that while taking the decision on the basis of the ACR/PAR, proper procedure has not been followed and the ACR/PAR relied upon against the petitioner was never communicated to her. He would also submit that the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to represent against the adverse ACR/PAR before taking the decision not to extend her contractual assignment. It is further submitted that the Annual Performance Appraisal for the financial year 2025-26 recommended continuation of the petitioner’s service and her work was recorded as excellent. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned action and submit that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and her continuation was subject to satisfactory performance and the terms and conditions governing her contractual appointment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the order impugned. 5. From the perusal of the order, it is apparent that the contractual assignment of the petitioner has been brought to an end on the basis of her ACR/PAR. 6. From perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the ACR/PAR relied upon against the petitioner was not communicated to her. It is also evident that the Annual Performance Appraisal for the financial year 2025-26 recommended continuation of the petitioner’s service and recorded her work as excellent. 7. Referring to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be treated adversely on the basis of an ACR/PAR which was not communicated to her and against which no opportunity of representation was afforded. 8. This Court is convinced that the order of discontinuation of contractual appointment of the petitioner deserves to be quashed for the reason that once the ACR/PAR is made the basis for continuation or discontinuation 4 of contractual employment, the same has to be communicated to the concerned employee and an opportunity to represent against the same has to be afforded. If the ACR/PAR is not of the required standard and is relied upon for denying continuation of contractual employment, the employee must have an opportunity to represent against the same. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) would apply with full force for the reason that if an employee is entitled to any benefit out of the ACR/PAR, the same has to be communicated without which it cannot be considered against the employee. 9. It is also to be borne in mind that the Supreme Court has settled, in State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 587, that when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the right of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. 10. A contract employee or for that matter any public servant may not have an indefeasible right to continue in service, but once the authority relies upon the ACR/PAR for taking a decision concerning continuation of contractual employment, the same has to be communicated to the concerned employee before taking an adverse decision on the basis thereof. 11. For the reason stated hereinabove, I am inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.06.2026 is quashed. 12. The competent authority shall now provide the petitioner an opportunity to represent against the ACR/PAR relied upon against her and, based on 5 the decision on the petitioner’s representation, the competent authority shall consider the issue afresh concerning continuation of the petitioner’s contractual assignment on the post of Block Project Manager. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul