1 2026:CGHC:15756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5065 of 2021 1 - Merkha Paikas Ekka S/o Shri Dhanmashih Ekka Aged About 38 Years Working As Technical Assistant, At Janpad Panchayat- Ramanujnagar, P.S- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Program Officer (Mgnrega) Ramanujnagar, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujnagar, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. B.P. Banjare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2026 -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court hold the Action of the Respondent in not considering the Case of the Petitioner is Arbitrary & Capricious and in a Sheer contravention of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to continue work at present place of appointment/posting as Technical Assistant, at Janpad Panchayat - Ramanujnagar, District -Surajpur (C.G.). 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extent the service of the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant, at Janpad Panchayat - Ramanujnagar, District-Surajpur (C.G.). 10.5 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Assistant on contract basis vide order dated 18.11.2011. The services of 56 contractual Technical Assistants were extended by respondent No.3/Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur (C.G.) but the petitioner was singled out and since then, he is out of service. 3. Ms. Lalchandani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without assigning any reason and contrary to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, services of the petitioner have been discontinued. She would further submit that it was orally 3 informed by respondent No.3 that his ACRs were not found upto marks and thus, the decision for discontinuation of service was stigmatic and punitive in nature and therefore, the respondent authorities were under obligation to initiate an inquiry. She would seek a direction to respondent No.3 for reinstatement of service of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose submissions. They would submit that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on the post of Technical Assistant. They would further submit that respondent No.3 took a decision to extend contractual period of 56 Technical Assistants but the contractual period of the petitioner was not extended. It is contended that the decision was neither punitive nor stigmatic and decision has been taken strictly in accordance with the Rule 11(5) of the Rules of 2012. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Rule 11(5) of the Rules of 2012 reads as under : ““11.Period of appointment - (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) Either of both the parties may terminate the contact appointment during the period of contract appointment by giving one month's notice in advance or paying one month's salary in its place. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that no specific order of removal was issued, therefore, it cannot be held that the discontinuation of -4- service of the petitioner or his removal from service was stigmatic or punitive. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that expiry and non-renewal of a fixed term service contract, when communicated without stigma, is not punitive termination and does not by itself require disciplinary safeguards. 9. Further, the decision has been taken in accordance with the Rule 11(5) of the Rules of 2012, therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha