1 2026:CGHC:15495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5674 of 2021 1 - Derhalal Sahu @ Daman Lal Sahu (Died) Through Legal Heir As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20-04-2022. 1.1 - Seema Sahu W/o Late Derhalal Sahu @ Deman Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gurur, Post And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Office Of The Collectorate , Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Programme Officer Women And Child Development Department, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be set aside the order dated 27/03/2021 Annexure P-1 in pursuance to the order dated 21/01/2021 and reinstate the petitioner on his original post. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that husband of the petitioner was a daily-rated employee working under the respondents. He would submit that his services were terminated without holding any enquiry and on the basis of certain allegations. It is argued that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry or afforded an opportunity of hearing before inflicting a major penalty. He would pray to set aside the order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the original petitioner, a daily-rated employee, expired on 26.9.2021 and the present petition is being pursued by his wife. He would submit that the original petitioner was a daily-rated employee, working with the respondents in violation of the constitutional mandate. He would submit that as the original petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned or vacant post, therefore, there was no requirement to conduct any enquiry. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 5. The issue for consideration in the present case is whether the husband of the petitioner, who was a daily-rated employee and not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules, was entitled to the protection of an enquiry before termination. On account of certain allegations, his services were discontinued by the respondent authorities and the said order has been challenged by filing this writ petition. Since the husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee but a daily-rated employee, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry as there were no statutory rules governing the service conditions of the original petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi