1 2026:CGHC:11576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5708 of 2019 1 - Chandra Bhan Gupta S/o Shri Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 40 Years Working As Rojgar Sahayak At Gram Panchayat- Kadiya, Janpad Panchayat Wadrfnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Graminvikas, Vibhag, Mahanandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.03.12 10:55:29 +0530 2 5 - District Program Officer Balrampur, Zila Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 11.03.2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18/07/2019 (Annexure P/1) by which his service has been dispensed with by the respondent No. 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working on the post of Rajgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Kadiya and though he was initially appointed for one year but thereafter his service was extended on yearly basis, however, by the impugned order, he has been terminated and the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his future employment may be affected thereby, as such, it is liable to be set aside. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the competent authority, by simply holding that petitioner’s reply is not satisfactory, proceeded to dispense with his service. The order reflects that it is an unreasoned and non-speaking order and petitioner has been terminated without even considering his reply. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 18/07/2019 (Annexure P/1), being stigmatic in nature, is hereby set aside. However, since petitioner’s period of employment has already expired, he would not get the benefit of reinstatement, but the petitioner will be entitled to apply for the future advertisements floated by the respondents, if any, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet