Santosh Kumar Khairwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6531 Chatt

                                    1


                                                                  NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 134 of 2021

Santosh Kumar Khairwar S/o Sevak Ram aged about 39 Years R/o
Village Jatga, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Appellant

                                 Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
     Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
     Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2.   Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

3.   Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba District Korba
     Chhattisgarh

4.   Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pondi Uproda, District
     Korba Chhattisgarh

                                                       ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

02.11.2022

Heard Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General,

appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 02.03.3021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1135 of 2021, whereby the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, as presented in the writ petition, was that

he was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Jatga on

contract basis @ Rs.2000/- per month by the respondent No.4 by issuing

an order dated 16.09.2008 and that from time to time, such engagement

was continued. It appears that contractual engagement of the petitioner

was last extended for a period from 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2020. However,

by an order dated 29.02.2020, relying on Rule 11(4) of the Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012, the contract period

having expired, the services of the petitioner was discontinued. In the

order dated 29.02.2020, reference was also made to unsatisfactory

performance of duty and negligence by the petitioner.

4. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 had issued a letter dated

05.02.2021 to the Sarpanch/Sachiv of the Gram Panchayats of Jhinpuri,

Baniya, Chandrauti, Lamna, Tanakhar, Lad, Jatga and Manikpur to take

steps for engagement of Rozgar Sahayaks.

5. The writ petition was filed on 08.02.2021 challenging the order

dated 29.02.2020 and 05.02.2021.

6. The learned Single Judge held that as the order of discontinuance

of engagement was passed on 29.02.2020, i.e., more than a year back,

issuance of advertisement cannot be faulted with as the petitioner had

not taken requisite steps to challenge the same at the appropriate time as

a result of which the order of discontinuance had attained finality.

However, liberty was grated to the petitioner to approach the concerned

authorities under the Scheme of MGNREGA for representing against the

impugned order dated 29.02.2020 so far it related to adverse comments

made against the petitioner in the said order.

7. The petitioner, in terms of the order of this Court dated 02.03.2021,

submitted a representation to the respondent No.4, which was

acknowledged on 17.03.2021.

8. Thereafter, this appeal was preferred before this Court on

27.03.2021.

9. Placing reliance on an order dated 24.06.2021 (Annexure-A/5) and

an order dated 01.05.2020 (Annexure-A/6), it is contended by Mr. Sahu

that even though the petitioner was disengaged from service, he was

shown to be still engaged as Rozgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Jatga

and therefore, his case may be favourably considered by this Court.

10. The petitioner having acted upon the order of learned Single Judge

by filing representation in terms of the liberty granted to him, the

petitioner again cannot turn around and assail the order of learned Single

Judge by filing a writ appeal.

11. Be that as it may.

12. By the order dated 01.05.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

the petitioner was deputed for duty in Quarantine Centre during the

Covid-19 pandemic. By order dated 24.06.2021 issued by the Sub

Divisional Officer, the petitioner was engaged to discharge duty at the

Vaccination Centre. There is no averment in the writ petition that pursuant

to such orders, the petitioner had rendered services. It is apparent that

Sub-Divsional Officer was not aware that the service of the petitioner had

been discontinued on and from 29.02.2021.

13. It is seen from Annexure-A/4 of the appeal papers that the

representation submitted by the petitioner on 17.03.2021 had been

rejected holding that he could not be re-appointed. However, there is no

consideration with regard to the adverse comments that found place in

the order dated 29.02.2020.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do

not find it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned Single

Judge. However, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice will

be sub-served if the adverse comments, as noted in the order dated

29.02.2020, is expunged so that the petitioner does not have any

difficulty in securing employment in the future. Ordered accordingly.

15. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with the above

directions.

                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Sanjay Agrawal)
                    Chief Justice                               Judge

Chandra