1 2026:CGHC:19761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8654 of 2022 1 - Rajkumar Gandare S/o Budhe Gandare Aged About 51 Years Working As Part Time Cleaner, And Posted At Govt. Ayurved Aushdhalaya Rawan, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurved Officer Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Saini,Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner to reinstate in his service within stipulated time looking to the critical condition, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Part Time Cleaner on contract basis under respondent No.3 vide order dated 21.10.1999. He would further submit that the petitioner has been REKHA SINGH -2- performing his duties sincerely and honestly. He would contend that on 27.12.2021, during a surprise inspection, Government Ayurved Hospital Ravan, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) was found closed and the petitioner was found absent from his duties, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on 05.01.2022 and reply was filed by the petitioner. He would further contend that on account of medical condition of his wife, the petitioner could not open the hospital on said date. He would submit that services of the petitioner were terminated on 03.06.2022 as his services were not found satisfactory. He would further submit that the order impugned dated 03.06.2022 is stigmatic and punitive in nature and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, therefore, the said order may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would submit that absence of the petitioner was not a foundation of termination of his services. He would further submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee and his services were not found satisfactory, therefore, the authority concerned terminated his services. He would contend that there were complaints to the effect that the petitioner did not open the hospital regularly. He would further contend that as order is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature and the decision was taken in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the order of appointment, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Part Time Cleaner on contract basis vide order dated 21.10.1999. The complaints were received by respondent No.3 against the petitioner and during a surprise inspection, the Government Ayurved Hospital Ravan, District 3 Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) was found close. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. The authority concerned issued a show-cause notice prior to termination of services of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the order Annexure P/1 dated 03.06.2022 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. 7. A perusal of order Annexure P/1 would show that the services of the petitioner were terminated pursuant to Circular dated 18.08.2010, wherein, it is stated that if work of contractual employee is not found satisfactory, his services can be terminated by the District Ayurved Officer. It appears that the petitioner was a contractual employee and decision was taken by respondent No.3 in accordance with Circular dated 18.08.2010, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by respondent No.3, accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha