The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging the termination of a Rojgar Sahayak's contractual service. The court upheld the Single Judge's finding that the termination was lawful as the services were not extended due to unsatisfactory work and failure to reply to show-cause notices.
The writ appeal is dismissed. No cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:7634-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 112 of 2025
Ramgopal Kashyap S/o Shri Kapil Ram Kashyap, aged about 35 years R/o Village- Lalpur Kala, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA
Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.02.13 16:37:30 +0530
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector, Mungeli District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
5 - Program Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13. 02.2025
2
which is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the present appeal.
3
Guarantee Scheme run by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. On 31.07.2019, as per the order dated 05.03.2019, the contractual service of the temporary contractual post of “Gram Rozgar Sahayak” approved at the Gram Panchayat Level under MNREGA was extended from 01.03.2019 to 29.02.2020. In the month of October, 2019, by an oral order, the appellant was directed not to come for his duties without serving any order of termination of his service in this regard. On 05.10.2019 (Annexure P/6), certificate was issued mentioning that the appellant worked with honesty and dedication in Gram Panchayat Lalpur (Kalon) from 02.07.2019 to 25.09.2019 and the work done by him is very good & after 25.09.2019, Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Lormi and Program Officer, District- Panchayat Lormi refused to take work from the appellant. Hence, the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 9142 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.06.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4
under RTI dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi whereby inter-alia mentioned no notice has been issued by this office prior to termination nor one month salary, which is the violation of the rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012. She further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is in violation of principles of natural Justice & terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 02-07-2010 as well as C.G. Civil Service (Contract appointment) Rule. In the month of October 2019 by an oral order, petitioner was directed not to come for his duties. Neither any order of termination nor any other order was served to the petitioner in this regard. The action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the well-settled law and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. She also submitted that action of the respondent authorities is in violation of the Panchayat Act as well as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and before recording the finding against the petitioner, even no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. No punitive order can be passed against any person without giving proper opportunity of hearing. The impugned action and awards are beyond the powers and competence of the respondent authorities and are bad in law. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 .
5
6
approval of respondent No.2 is annexed as Annexure-R/5. The impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is well reasoned and in accordance with law. The appellant was given full opportunity of hearing but he did not reply any of them. The work of the appellant was not satisfactory and he was negligent in respect of his work. In ACR, there were also adverse remarks in respect to the work of appellant. The appellant was given full opportunity of hearing and his service was terminated after the approval of Respondent No.2 Collector. The appellant’s engagement was purely on contractual basis which was terminated having found the work of appellant unsatisfactory. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the appellant's contractual service as Rojgar Sahayak was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition warrants interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and OthersDistinguished¶31
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139 · Who else cites this
Ramgopal Kashyap
State of Chhattisgarh
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
