The Chhattisgarh High Court, while allowing a petition filed to direct the respondent authorities to join the petitioner on the post of Rojgar Sahayak and quash the discontinuing of the petitioner’s employment as Rojgar Sahayak, held that the order of non-extension of services has civil consequences, more so when the non-extension is on the ground of negligence in discharging services and remaining absent from service.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak. Though the appointment of the petitioner was on contract for a period of one year, the period of contract was extended from time to time, and he continuously worked till the year 2017 after which his period of appointment was not renewed/extended without assigning any reason. The petitioner approached the authorities on many occasions, seeking the reason for the non-extension of the period of service upon which Respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that he remained absent from his service. The petitioner was not given copies of the ACRs of each year for which he has worked with the respondents.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the non-extension of the period of service on the adverse reasons has civil consequences, and therefore, no such decision could have been taken by the respondents without following the due procedure of law of issuing show-cause notice seeking reply on the allegations. Hence, he argued, the action taken by Respondent No. 4 of not renewing the service of the petitioner is bad in law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a show-cause notice dated 29.06.2016 was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied. Therefore, there is substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the grounds raised are not available to him.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the specific order of removing the petitioner was not issued/served upon him. However, after the completion of the period of 1 year, the period of service is not extended further from the year 2017. Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record any document to show that the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner and within the prescribed period.
The Court observed that it was mandatory for the respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the petitioner. The Court said that the order of non-extension of services has civil consequences, more so when the non-extension is on the ground of negligence in discharging services and remaining absent from service. Hence, Respondent No. 4 erred in not extending the period of service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity for a hearing.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the petition, held that Respondent No. 3 & 4 take appropriate steps in accordance with the law and take a decision for the continuation of services of the petitioner.
Case Title: Dev Singh Parmar v State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Case No.: WPS No. 4689 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pallav Mishra
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Giri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
