1 2026:CGHC:18048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8714 of 2023 Pappu Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Rajnath Vishwakarma, Aged About 32 Years (Presently Working as a Vehicle Driver In the Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh) R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development and Farmer Welfare and Bio-Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Agriculture, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant Soil Preservation Officer, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 7 - Amresh Prajapati S/o Santosh Prajapati, Aged About 36 Years, Jail Road, Ward No. 3, Buddhu Tola, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.04.22 19:10:23 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Agarwal, Panel Lawyer S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. The petitioner was working as a Driver in the Office of the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG). The fact of his appointment is revealed by a document dated 23.5.2019 (Annexure P/1), wherein the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) informed the local MLA that the petitioner has been in continuous service since 6.1.2015. It is contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated without any plausible reason. Moreover, no order of termination was ever served upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs : 10.1 This hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in restraining the respondent authorities from replacing the petitioner with any new employee. 10.2 This honourable Court may please be kind enough in restraining the respondent authorities from committing any act of unfair labour practices against the petitioner. 10.3 This honourable Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondent authorities to regularise the 3 petitioner as soon as possible and till then he may be allowed to work and draw salaries as daily wages employee. 10.4 This hon'ble Court may please also be kind enough in granting the continuance in service & salaries to the petitioner. 10.5 This hon'ble Court may please also be kind enough in granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work of the petitioner was duly appreciated by the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) who issued a Certificate of Appreciation dated 31.3.2023. Earlier, after his removal from service, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.659/2021, wherein vide order dated 17.2.2021, a direction was issued to the concerned respondents to consider his claim for re-engagement as a daily wage employee. However, the respondent authorities did not take his services without any reason. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another petition bearing WPS No.3090/2021, wherein, vide order 10.5.2023, the said petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No.4 with a direction to the said respondent to decide the same within three months. He submits that pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a representation, however, neither the same has been decided till date nor he has been reinstated in service. Subsequently, the 4 petitioner was paid his salary till July 2023; however since August 2023, he has been prevented from performing his duties. On the contrary, respondent No.7 has now been engaged by the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG) in place of the petitioner. This action is squarely contrary to the law laid down in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118, wherein it was categorically held that one temporary employee cannot be substituted by another temporary employee. He submits that since the petitioner was working on a temporary/daily-wage basis, he ought to have been continued or accommodated in the said service. The respondent authorities cannot dispense with the services of the petitioner only to replace him with another temporary hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the said action is arbitrary and illegal and hence, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement by passing an appropriate order. 3. Per contra, Mr. Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the State submits that respondent No.6 has not been appointed as a Driver in the office of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG). He submits that the service of the petitioner was terminated because the vehicle allotted to him had become dilapidated and beyond repair. He submits that as the State Government has not yet sanctioned or received a replacement vehicle, the petitioner’s services were no longer 5 required. Consequently, the termination of the petitioner’s services is justified due to non-availability of work and absence of a functional vehicle. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 5. Admittedly, no order of termination has been placed on record to show that the petitioner’s services were ever officially terminated. A perusal of the order dated 17.2.2021 passed in WPS No.659/2021 and the order dated 10.5.2023 passed in WPS No.3090/2023 clearly shows that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities and has repeatedly sought redressal before this Court, resulting in specific judicial directions. 6. So far as substitution of the petitioner’s services with those of respondent No.7 is concerned, since the petitioner has filed this petition supported by an affidavit categorically stating that respondent No.7 has been engaged in his stead, the respondents authorities are under an obligation to rebut this fact with documentary evidence. However, the return filed by the State fails to dispute this claim without any supporting documents. In the absence of a specific denial backed by documentation, the assertion made by the petitioner on affidavit must be taken as correct. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG), for fresh consideration. 6 Since no order of termination has been passed against the petitioner, and in light of the fact that his services were found to be satisfactory and appreciable, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be substituted by another temporary employee, as per the settled position of law in Piara Singh (Supra). 8. In view of the above, the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.5- Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The respondent authorities shall further ensure that a copy of the said order is sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to demonstrate compliance of these directions made hereinabove. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay