Dismissed¶38

Omprakash Mishra v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Apr 2026WPS/7112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of Consultant engaged on daily honorarium (Rs.1100/- per working day) by Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University; sexual harassment complaints and Internal Committee inquiries alleged as motive; Court held termination order dated 12.11.2021 simpliciter, non-stigmatic, non-punitive; petitioner not contractual/regular employee, so no one-month notice or honorarium payable; writ petition dismissed by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the order dated 12.11.2021 reveals that the petitioner's services were terminated simpliciter; the impugned order is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. ¶35

Omprakash Mishra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:CGHC:18336

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 7112 of 2021

¶5

1 - Omprakash Mishra S/o Late R.L. Mishra Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter - 29/b, Mannam Nagar, Dhanora P.O. Hanoda Tehsil District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Block-3, 3rd And 4th Floor Naya Raipur 492002

¶9

2 - Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, Through The Registrar.

¶10

3 - Dr. Deepti Verma, President, Internal Complaint Committe, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Dr. Archana Chauhan, Member, Internal Complaint Committe, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Smt. Hema Sahu Member, Internal Complaint Committe, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6 - Smt. Mamta Awasthi Member, Internal Complaint Committe, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

7 - Smt. Seema Soni, Member, Internal Complaint Committee, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶15

8 - Dr. M.K. Verma, Presently Working As Vice Chancellor, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶16

9 - Dr. K.K. Verma, Presently Working As Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶17

-2-

¶18

10 - Kum. Bhuneshwari Sahu Presently Working As Skilled Worker, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Newai, P.O. Newai, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuradha Jain,Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate to 10

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶21

22.04.2026

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) :

¶24

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records from Respondent authorities.

¶25

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may quash the arbitrary termination of service of the Petitioner.

¶26

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to permit participation of the Petitioner in any subsequent recruitment advertisement issued by the Respondent authorities.

¶27

10.4. The Hon'ble Court may grant compensation to the Petitioner from the Respondents for the mental suffering on account of trumped up allegations of sexual harassment against the Petitioner.

¶28

10.5. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of the Petition to the Petitioner.

¶29

10.6. The Hon'ble Court may issue any other Writ, Order (s), Direction(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”

¶30

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Consultant for General Administration Department of respondent No.2 University vide order dated 27.05.2014 on daily honorarium basis at the rate of Rs.1100/- per working day. The said order of appointment was extended from time to time. The University vide order dated 12.11.2021 terminated the services of the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that frivolous complaints of sexual harassment were made against the petitioner and inquiries were conducted by internal Committee. He

¶32

would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the said Committee and on the basis of allegations made therein, services of the petitioner were terminated. He would contend that as the order of termination is punitive in nature, the respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct an inquiry before terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/University would submit that the petitioner was simply appointed as a Consultant on a fixed honorarium at the rate of Rs.1100/- per working day. He would further submit that the services of the petitioner were not required and therefore, order dated 12.11.2021 was issued terminating his services. He would contend that order dated 12.11.2021 is a simplicitor order of termination of services and it is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. He would further contend that the order of termination is not the outcome of allegations made against the petitioner, therefore, there was no need to conduct an inquiry. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶35

Though the petitioner has placed various documents to demonstrate that there were allegations of sexual harassment against him and Inquiry Committees were constituted but perusal of the order dated 12.11.2021 would reveal that services of the petitioner were terminated simplicitor. The order impugned is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature. Further, the petitioner was not a contractual or regular employee of University, therefore, there was no need to serve one month prior notice or to make payment of honorarium of one

¶36

-4-

¶37

month.

¶38

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶41

Rekha

Omprakash Mishra v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Mishra v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(Deleted) Prema Chandrawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Prasad Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South East Coalfield Limited Vs Smt Sukhmanti

Mohammed Raihan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonamati Singh Vs The State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Suresh Kumar Mansana