Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijayanand Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 June, 2023

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 12TH OF JUNE, 2023
W.P. No.675 of 2021

BETWEEN:-

VIJAYANAND TRIPATHI S/O SHRI RAMSUSHIL
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
SAMUH PRERAK (GROUP MOTIVATOR), BLOCK-
RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT - SATNA (M.P.), R/O
VILLAGE - AMIRITI, POST-MISIRGAWAN, DISTRICT
REWA (M.P.)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRATAP TARUN
SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, M.P.
DAY, STATE RURAL LIVELIHOOD
MISSION (SRLM) VINDHYACHAL
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P. DAY,
STATE RURAL LIVELIHOOD MISSION
DIST. BHOPAL (M.P.)
4. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SATNA.
5. ADDITIONAL MISSION DIRECTOR/CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT,
DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.)
6. DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, M.P. DAY,
STATE RURAL LIVELIHOOD MISSION,
2

DIST. SATNA (M.P.)
......RESPONDENTS

(SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 4/STATE)
(SHRI A.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI MANAN AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 5 AND 6)
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 17.03.2023
Pronounced on : 12.06.2023
.................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
ORDER

Pleadings are complete. The parties agreed to argue the matter finally, accordingly, it is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of orders dated 06.08.2020 and 16.12.2020 contained in Annexures-P/2 and P/5 respectively. The order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure-P/2) has given rise to the dispute.

3. The necessary fact of the case in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 That the petitioner was initially appointed as Samooh Prerak on contractual basis in the year 2015. An agreement in this regard was executed containing the terms and conditions of service. The said agreement is Annexure-P/1 dated 26.09.2015. The services of the petitioner were transferred from District Sidhi to District Shahdol and thereafter to District Satna from where his contract has not been extended which amounts to termination of his services. The order in this

regard was passed on 06.08.2020 (Annexure-P/2).

3.2 Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Satna, who set aside the order dated 06.08.2020 saying that the same is a non-speaking order and remitted the matter back to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat with a direction that after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order be passed on merits.

3.3 The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the authority stating that since the order dated 06.08.2020 is set aside, therefore, he may be allowed to join, but vide order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-P/5), the authority has terminated the contract services of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing and directed that the agreement since has already been terminated vide order dated 06.08.2020, therefore, the same is continued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the order mainly on the ground that the authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, who had passed the order is not the competent authority as per the policy dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-P/6) and the order should have been passed by the Collector. He submits that in the policy dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure-P/7) issued by the respondent/department it is mentioned that even the contract services cannot be terminated and contract cannot be refused to be extended without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. According to Shri Ghildiyal, the procedure prescribed in the policy dated 05.06.2018 is required to be followed before terminating the service of employee. He submits that the same has not been done. According to him, the order is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relies

upon the decisions reported in 2001(3) MPHT 397 (Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission and Others), (1999) 3 SCC 60 (Deepti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satendra Nath Bose and others) and (2000) 3 SCC 239 (V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others).

5. Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents has filed reply and relying upon the stand taken therein submits that the condition No.16 of the order of appointment very clearly provides that the services of contract employee can be terminated without assigning any reason giving one month's notice in advance or in lieu of the same, one month's salary. He also submits that the order of termination got approved by the Collector on 28.07.2020 and thereafter, the order dated 06.08.2020 has been passed. Therefore, the same has been issued by the competent authority. He further submits that the Chief Executive Officer is only a communicating authority, but the order has been passed with the approval of Collector. He submits that as per Clause 7.1 of instructions dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-P/6), the period of contract of the petitioner was already over and, therefore, there was no notice required before taking decision for not extending the contract. Although, he submits that show-cause notices have been issued to the petitioner which is evident from Annexure-R-2/4 filed by them along with the reply. Shri Singh, therefore, submits that nothing wrong has been committed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner and not extending his service contract. He relies upon the judgments reported in AIR 158 SC 36 (Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India), (2010) 12 SCC 783 (Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and another), (2011) 4 SCC 447 (Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and others), (2019) 20 SCC 288 (Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha and others Vs.

Jaya and others), WA No.145 of 2021 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Smt. Sanju Rawat), W.P. No.5978 of 2018 (Harshit Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and W.P. No.3032 of 2021 (Shyam Babu Jaiswal and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh).

6. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

7. The question was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner about the competency of the authority which had passed the impugned order. According to the counsel for the petitioner in the policy dated 24.02.2000, the Collector is said to be a competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner and in support thereof, he has drawn attention of this Court towards the policy framed by the respondent/department dated 24.02.2000 in regard to appointment made under SRLM wherein the services of contract employee appointed at District Level and Block Leverl can be terminated only by the Collector and according to him, the impugned order has been passed by the incompetent authority.

8. However, from the order-sheets submitted by learned counsel for the respondents it is clear that the approval has been taken from the Collector on 28.07.2000 and that order was given effect by the Chief Executive Officer. Those order-sheets are available on record. As such, it is clear that the Collector has first given approval for terminating the services of the petitioner and then the impugned order has been passed. However, that order of termination was assailed before the appellate authority, who in turn, vide order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure- P/3) set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Satna for passing a fresh order giving

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-P/5) after hearing the petitioner passed an order terminating his services, maintaining the order dated 06.08.2020 earlier passed by the said authority taking approval from Collector.

9. Since the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that the Collector was the competent authority in view of the policy dated 24.02.2020 wherein the services of contract employee appointed at Block Level can be terminated by the Collector only. The appointment of the petitioner was made at Block Level, but the impugned order which was passed on 16.12.2020 was not passed by the Collector and, therefore, the said order is without jurisdiction. Merely because the Commissioner has remitted the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, does not mean that the Chief Executive Officer had acquired the jurisdiction to pass an order of termination of the services of the petitioner and, therefore, in my opinion, the order is without any jurisdiction and passed by the incompetent authority who further committed a mistake by maintaining the same order passed on 06.08.2020 whereas the said order had already been set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure-P/3). Therefore, without entering into merits of the case, I am allowing this petition, setting aside the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Satna on 06 08.2020 (Annexure-P/2) and 16.12.2020 (Annexure-P/5) respectively. However, liberty is granted to the competent authority i.e. Collector Satna to hear the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by the appellate authority and decide the case of the petitioner afresh. The said exercise be completed by the Collector within a period of 30 days from the date of submitting a copy

of this order. It is further made clear that since the petitioner is out from service from 2020, therefore, for the intervening period within which Collector has to complete the exercise the petitioner may not be permitted to perform his duties but if appeal is not decided within the period of 30 days then the petitioner will acquire right to be reinstated in service.

10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

ANIL CHOUDHARY 2023.06.14 11:09:24 +05'30'