[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Pappu Kumar Vishwakarma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:18048
NAFR
SHYNA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AJAY
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date: 2026.04.22 WPS No. 8714 of 2023
19:10:23 +0530
Pappu Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Rajnath Vishwakarma, Aged About 32
Years (Presently Working as a Vehicle Driver In the Office Of Deputy Director,
Agriculture, Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh) R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development and
Farmer Welfare and Bio-Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate Of Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
4 - Deputy Director Agriculture, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh
6 - Assistant Soil Preservation Officer, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Amresh Prajapati S/o Santosh Prajapati, Aged About 36 Years, Jail Road, Ward
No. 3, Buddhu Tola, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
2
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Agarwal, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
21/04/2026
1. The petitioner was working as a Driver in the Office of the Deputy
Director (Agriculture), Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG). The fact of
his appointment is revealed by a document dated 23.5.2019
(Annexure P/1), wherein the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) informed the
local MLA that the petitioner has been in continuous service since
6.1.2015. It is contended that the services of the petitioner were
terminated without any plausible reason. Moreover, no order of
termination was ever served upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid act of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed
this petition seeking the following reliefs :
10.1 This hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in
restraining the respondent authorities from replacing the
petitioner with any new employee.
10.2 This honourable Court may please be kind enough in
restraining the respondent authorities from committing any
act of unfair labour practices against the petitioner.
10.3 This honourable Court may please be kind enough in
directing the respondent authorities to regularise the
petitioner as soon as possible and till then he may be
allowed to work and draw salaries as daily wages
employee.
10.4 This hon'ble Court may please also be kind enough in
granting the continuance in service & salaries to the
petitioner.
10.5 This hon'ble Court may please also be kind enough in
granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner.
2. Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the work of the petitioner was duly
appreciated by the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) who issued a
Certificate of Appreciation dated 31.3.2023. Earlier, after his
removal from service, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing WPS No.659/2021, wherein vide order dated 17.2.2021, a
direction was issued to the concerned respondents to consider his
claim for re-engagement as a daily wage employee. However, the
respondent authorities did not take his services without any
reason. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another petition bearing
WPS No.3090/2021, wherein, vide order 10.5.2023, the said
petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a
detailed representation before respondent No.4 with a direction to
the said respondent to decide the same within three months. He
submits that pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a
representation, however, neither the same has been decided till
date nor he has been reinstated in service. Subsequently, the
petitioner was paid his salary till July 2023; however since August
2023, he has been prevented from performing his duties. On the
contrary, respondent No.7 has now been engaged by the Sub
Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (CG) in place of the petitioner. This action is
squarely contrary to the law laid down in a judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and
others Vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC
118, wherein it was categorically held that one temporary
employee cannot be substituted by another temporary employee.
He submits that since the petitioner was working on a
temporary/daily-wage basis, he ought to have been continued or
accommodated in the said service. The respondent authorities
cannot dispense with the services of the petitioner only to replace
him with another temporary hand. Learned counsel for the
petitioner lastly submits that the said action is arbitrary and illegal
and hence, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement by passing
an appropriate order.
3. Per contra, Mr. Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the State
submits that respondent No.6 has not been appointed as a Driver
in the office of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG). He submits that the service
of the petitioner was terminated because the vehicle allotted to
him had become dilapidated and beyond repair. He submits that
as the State Government has not yet sanctioned or received a
replacement vehicle, the petitioner's services were no longer
required. Consequently, the termination of the petitioner's services
is justified due to non-availability of work and absence of a
functional vehicle.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.
5. Admittedly, no order of termination has been placed on record to
show that the petitioner's services were ever officially terminated.
A perusal of the order dated 17.2.2021 passed in WPS
No.659/2021 and the order dated 10.5.2023 passed in WPS
No.3090/2023 clearly shows that the petitioner has been
aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities and
has repeatedly sought redressal before this Court, resulting in
specific judicial directions.
6. So far as substitution of the petitioner's services with those of
respondent No.7 is concerned, since the petitioner has filed this
petition supported by an affidavit categorically stating that
respondent No.7 has been engaged in his stead, the respondents
authorities are under an obligation to rebut this fact with
documentary evidence. However, the return filed by the State fails
to dispute this claim without any supporting documents. In the
absence of a specific denial backed by documentation, the
assertion made by the petitioner on affidavit must be taken as
correct.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter
is remitted to the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Ramanujganj,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG), for fresh consideration.
Since no order of termination has been passed against the
petitioner, and in light of the fact that his services were found to be
satisfactory and appreciable, in the opinion of this Court, the
petitioner cannot be substituted by another temporary employee,
as per the settled position of law in Piara Singh (Supra).
8. In view of the above, the respondent authorities, particularly
respondent No.5- Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) are directed
to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order
in accordance with law. The respondent authorities shall further
ensure that a copy of the said order is sent to the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court to demonstrate compliance of these
directions made hereinabove.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay
