Allowed

Vidya Lal Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2025WPS/3935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his termination from the post of Rojgar Sahayak as irregular and stigmatic. The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the termination order but denied reinstatement due to the expiration of the contractual tenure.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 27.07.2016 is set aside. The petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement as his service period had expired; however, he is free to apply for future employment.

Vidya Lal Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

(WPS No. 3935 of 2016)

¶3

Digitally ADITI signed by DIWAN ADITI KAIWART DIWAN KAIWART

¶4

2025:CGHC:697

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3935 of 2016

¶7

1 - Vidya Lal Singh S/o Ramjit Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste Khairwar, R/o Village Annpara, Block Ramchandrapur Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Devnarayan Singh, S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Uttam Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Shri Ramjit Yadav, Aged About 52 Years Secretary, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh,

¶16

7 - Rajdev Sharma, S/o Bhukham Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Village Level Executive Bank Representative, Gram Panchayat Annpara, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶19

¶20

(WPS No. 3935 of 2016)

¶21

For Petitioner :- Mr.	A.K.	Yadav, Advocate
For State :- Mr.	Amit	Buxy, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.4 :- Mr.	Vino	d Deshmukh, Advocate

¶22

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶23

06.01.2025

¶24

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.4, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak on 20.07.2007 on a contractual basis for a period of one year but his services were continued from time to time and the latest tenure was up to 31.03.2017 but in the mid way, on 27.07.2016, without affording due opportunity of hearing and without gaining approval of the Collector, the petitioner’s services have been terminated by passing the impugned order, which is stigmatic in nature and not in accordance with law. As such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated into service.

¶26

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4 would support the impugned order.

¶27

¶28

(WPS No. 3935 of 2016)

¶29

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

5. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground that he was working contrary to the provisions contained in the Mahatma Gandhi Rojgar Guarantee Act and was also involved in making false entries in the muster roll. As such, impugned order dated 27.07.2016, being stigmatic in nature is hereby set aside. Even so, the petitioner would not be entitled for reinstatement in service as his contractual service period had already expired on 31.03.2017, however, this will not bar the petitioner to apply for any future employment in accordance with law.

¶31

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

¶32

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶33

@d!t!

Vidya Lal Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Lal Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulapati Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dropadi Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s. Jaiswal Construction Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dileshwar Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Ashwani Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh