1 2026:CGHC:14229 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4077 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Tandan S/o Shri Babu Lal Tandan Aged About 42 Years Working As Development Assistant At District Mineral Foundation, Trust Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary of Mince And Mineral Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Director Mining And Geological Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Collector Korba District - Korba (Chhattisgarh). 4- Collector Cum Chairman Managing Committee District Mineral Foundation Trust Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order Sheet 25/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the 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. 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 30-06-2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated from his service. 10.3 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. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Development Assistant on a contractual basis on 18.01.2018 for a period of 1 year. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were extended vide order dated 05.03.2021 for a period of 3 years till 31.01.2024. He would further contend that respondent No. 4, vide order dated 30.06.2021, terminated the appointment of the petitioner with payment of one month’s salary, exercising power under Rule 11(5) of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (for short, the Rules, 2012). He would submit that the action of respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the well-settled principles of service jurisprudence. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Ragupathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 346, wherein in paras 14 and 15 it is held that even though the appellant was engaged on a contractual basis, his services were in fact discontinued on the basis of allegations made against him, and not merely due to expiry of the contractual period. In such circumstances, particularly when the employee was entitled to benefits akin to a regular employee, termination without adhering to the principles of natural justice is impermissible in law. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order and the communication discontinuing the appellant’s services, and directed 3 reinstatement with continuity of service, though without entitlement to back wages. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee under respondent No. 4 and the decision was taken in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012. He would contend that the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive and that one month’s salary was paid to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012 reads as under:- “11.(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.” 6. A bare reading of the proviso would make it clear that either party to the contract may terminate the contract during its currency by giving one month’s notice or by paying one month’s salary in lieu thereof. 7. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Development Assistant on 18.01.2018. The services of the petitioner were extended vide order dated 05.03.2021 for a period of 3 years, and during the currency of the said period, a decision was taken by the respondent authorities to terminate the contractual appointment of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012 after paying one month’s salary. 8. The petitioner has not established that the provisions contained in Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012 were not complied with by respondent No. 4. 4 Rather, it is contended that no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. 9. Perusal of Annexure P/1 would make it clear that the order is neither punitive nor stigmatic; the same was passed in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 2012. 10. In the matter of K. Ragupathi (supra), after expiry of the contract period, the authorities concerned terminated services of K. Ragupathi, and the order of termination was punitive in nature, this fact is evident from para 5 of the judgment, therefore, the order of termination was quashed. However, in the present case, the facts are different. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM