Chattisgarh High Court
Nisha Rajput (Peti. In Person) vs Principal Secretary on 17 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6681 of 2021
1 - Nisha Rajput (Peti. In Person) W/o Vivek Gautam Aged About
38 Years Tribal Research And Training Institute, Near By
Purkhauti Muktangan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Niranjan Singh Rajput Father Of The Petitioner Nisha Rajput,
Resident Of Nearby Maa Girls Hostel Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda,
Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Principal Secretary To The Prime Minister Of India, South
Block, New Delhi,
2 - Secretary Department Of Personal Grivance, Administrative
Reform And Pension, 112 North Block New Delhi
3 - Chief Secretary State Government Of Chhattisgarh
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur
4 - Principal Secretary, State Government Of Chhattisgarh
Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi
Bhawan Naya Raipur
5 - Secretary, State Government Of Chhattisgarh Schedule Tribe
Schedule Caste Other Backward Classes Minority Development
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur
6 - Madam Shammi Aabidee Director Tribal Research And
Training Institute Nearby Purkhouti Muktangan Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh
7 - Secretary State Governmentof Chhattisgarh Labour And
Employment Depatment Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya
Raipur
8 - Officer Incharge Of The Commiittee Constituted For
Regularzation Of Temporary Employees Gad, Mantralaya
2
Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur
9 - Dr. T.K. Vaishnav Deputy Secretary To Honorable Governer
Of Chhattisgarh Rajbhawan Raipur
10 - Secretary State Government Of Chhattisgarh Woman And
Child Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya
Raipur ... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Niranjan Singh Rajput in person for
For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
17.07.2025
1. Mr. Niranjan Singh Rajput, Petitioner No.2 in person, has
been authorized by Petitioner No.1 to appear in this case
and make submissions.
2. Petitioner No.2 in person does not want to press his claim
with regard to recovery from retiral dues. Accordingly, the
claim of Petitioner No.2 is hereby rejected.
3. The facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 was
appointed as Data Entry Operator/Typist as a daily-rated
employee in the office of respondent No.6 on 01.06.2012.
She continued till February, 2021. She availed maternity
leave and thereafter, approached the authority to join the
services, but she was not permitted in the absence of a
sanctioned and vacant post. It was also stated by the
respondent authorities that funds were not allotted at that
point in time.
4. Petitioner No.1 has challenged the action of the
respondents whereby her services were discontinued. It is
pleaded and argued that petitioner No.1 worked for 9 years
with respondent No.6, and without any reason, her
services were discontinued. It is also argued that right has
accrued in favour of petitioner No.1 as she continuously
worked for 9 years and the discontinuation of her service is
in violation of Articles 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India.
It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the
respondent authorities to reinstate petitioner No.1 and pass
an order of regularization.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State, would oppose.
He would submit that petitioner No.1 was orally engaged
on the post of Data Entry Operator. He would further
submit that no appointment order was issued in favour of
petitioner No.1. Mr. Gupta would fairly submit that she
worked till 10th March, 2021. He would contend that
petitioner No.1 applied for maternity leave and when she
returned, in the absence of a sanctioned and vacant post,
she was not permitted to join the services. He would further
contend that there was one post of Data Entry Operator
and it was filled with a regular appointment in the year
2008. Mr. Gupta would further submit that respondent No.6
was receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the Government of
India for its research, survey, and evaluation activities. He
would further contend that in the year 2021, there was no
allocation of funds. He would also contend that the fund
was allocated by the Government of India in the year 2024-
25. He would also submit that as petitioner No.1 was
engaged by an oral order, her services were discontinued
by oral order. He would further state that as petitioner No.1
was a daily-rated employee, no right had accrued in her
favour and the provisions of Articles 309 & 311 of the
Constitution of India would not attract. He would contend
that the present petition is misconceived and deserves to
be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
7. Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services
under the Union and the States. Article 309 of the
Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and
conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a
State. Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons
employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.
Both these provisions are reproduced herein below:-
"309. Recruitment and conditions of
service of persons serving the
Union or a State-Subject to the
provisions of this Constitution, Acts of
the appropriate Legislature may
regulate the recruitment, and
conditions of service of persons
appointed, to public services and posts
in connection with the affairs of the
Union or of any State:
Provided that it shall be competent
for the President or such person as he
may direct in the case of services and
posts in connection with the affairs of
the Union, and for the Governor of a
State or such person as he may direct
in the case of services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State,
to make rules regulating the
recruitment, and the conditions of
service of persons appointed, to such
services and posts until provision in
that behalf is made by or under an Act
of the appropriate Legislature under
this article, and any rules so made shall
have effect subject to the provisions of
any such Act.
311. Dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank of persons employed in civil
capacities under the Union or a
State-
(1)No person who is a member of a
civil service of the Union or an al l.India
service or a civil service of a State or
holds a civil post under the Union or a
Slate shall be dismissed or removed by
a authority subordinate to that by which
he was appointed.
(2)No such person as aforesaid shall
be dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank except after an inquiry in which he
has been informed of the charges
against hi m and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges;Provided that where it is
proposed after such inquiry, to impose
upon him any such penalty, such
penalty may be imposed on the basis
of the evidence adduced during such
inquiry and it shall not be necessary to
give such person any opportunity of
making representation on the penalty
proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall
not apply--
(a)where a person is dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank on the
ground of conduct which has led to hi s
conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b)where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to
reduce him in rank is satisfied that for
some reason, to be recorded by that
authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c)where the President or the
Governor, as the case may be, is
satisfied that in the interest of the
security of the State, it is not expedient
to hold such inquiry.
(3)If, in respect of any such person as
aforesaid, a question arises whether it
is reasonably practicable to hold such
inquiry as is referred to in clause (2),
the decision thereon of the authority
empowered to dismiss or remove such
person or to reduce him in rank shall
be final."
8. A bare reading of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution
of India would make it clear that these provisions would
apply to the public servants serving with the Union of India
or the State and who have been recruited according to the
Service Rules and the constitutional mandate.
9. The contention made by Petitioner No.2 in Person, with
regard to the applicability of Article 309 & 311 of the
Constitution of India, is misconceived. Petitioner No.1 was
not a regular employee either under the Union of India or
State, and no appointment order was issued in her favour;
therefore, Articles 309 & 311 of the Constitution of India
would not attract.
10. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as a daily-rated employee in
the post of Data Entry Operator under respondent No.6 on
01.06.2012. She worked there till 10.03.2021, and
thereafter, she went on maternity leave, and when she
returned, she was not permitted to join the services. The
respondents, in their return, have stated that there was no
vacancy and funds were also not allotted; therefore, she
was not permitted to continue her services. It is
categorically stated that the funds were allotted by the
Government of India in the year 2024-25, whereas, the
services of the petitioner were discontinued in the month of
March, 2021 itself.
11. It is also not in dispute that no order of appointment was
issued in favour of petitioner No.1, and the order of
termination of services was also not issued. Therefore,
there was no need to hold any inquiry or issue a show-
cause notice.
12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do
not find any good ground to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, Petitioner No.1 would be at liberty to avail of the
remedy available under the law.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Rekha
