Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jethu Singh Patta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21790
1 WP-16390-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16390 of 2025
JETHU SINGH PATTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Diwaker - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.04.2025 whereby, the
authorities have refused to extend the contract period of the petitioner and
dispensed the services by holding that the work of the petitioner is not found
to be satisfactory.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2014 in the Block as
PFT member on contractual basis. Thereafter, vide agreement dated
07.08.2018 the petitioner was appointed for evaluation and monitoring in
District Hoshangabad under the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Ajivika Mission. It
is contended that vide another agreement dated 26.04.2024 the contract of
the petitioner was further extended for the District Dindori on the same post.
Vide order dated 26.07.2024 the petitioner was posted as District Project
Manager and since then he is continuing on the same post. Despite work of
the petitioner being satisfactory, order dated 29.04.2025 has been passed
whereby, the respondent No.2 has declined to renew the contract of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21790
2 WP-16390-2025
petitioner and service of the petitioner has been dispensed with. Hence, this
petition.
3. It is pointed out that the respondent themselves has issued an
appreciation certificate to the petitioner on 10.12.2024 considering his work
and performance, then how this order dated 29.04.2025 is issued stating that
his work is not satisfactory. It is argued that no show cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner showing that which work of the petitioner is not
found to be satisfactory. The order impugned is stigmatic in nature. Counsel
for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court a judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and ors:2024 SCC Online SC 2139 wherein it is held-
"33- In either of the above-noted eventualities, the Impugned Judgment
would have to necessarily be set aside. Nevertheless, let us examine the
reasoning of the Division Bench, which opined that the order is non-
stigmatic and simpliciter non-renewal of contract. The order dated
30.03.2013 was, quite obviously, the culmination of the process set into
motion by the two SCNs, which has been overlooked by the Division
Bench. The mere non-mention of the background situation or the SCNs in
the order dated 30.03.2013 cannot, by itself, be determinative of the nature
of the order. As held by this Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1974) 2 SCC 8315 and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2
SCC6 , the form of an order is not its final determinant and the Court can
find out the real reason and true character behind terminating/removing an
employee. Moreover, the Impugned Judgment also does not deal with
Clause 4. Interestingly, this Clause also escaped the attention of or/and
was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge either."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the relevant clause
of the policy dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P/9) with respect to Clause 9.1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21790
3 WP-16390-2025
saying that in case the work is not found to be satisfactory initiatives is to be
taken to dispense with the services, however, the procedure has not been
adopted by the respondents.
5. Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions pointing out the fact that the work of the petitioner was not found
to be satisfactory therefore, they have taken a decision not to extend the
contract period of the petitioner. He submits that merely observing that the
work is not found to be satisfactory does not amount to an stigmatic order in
view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal v. Tapas Kumar Hazra : (2006) 6 SCC 453. It is further
argued that petitioner was only a contractual employee therefore in terms of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank
of India and others vs. S. N. Goyal, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 no right
accrues to the petitioner to ask for continuation in services. He further relied
upon Clause 7 and 8 of the policy dated 24.02.2020 wherein on completion
of the contract period there was no requirement of even issuance of show
cause notice to the petitioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The fact remains that if the stand of the government is that no show
cause notice was required to be issued to the petitioner in the event when the
contract period is over, the petitioner being a contract employee cannot ask
for extension of the contract period in view of the judgment passed in S.N.
Goyal (supra)
9. It is argued that as the order impugned there is an allegation against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21790
4 WP-16390-2025
petitioner with respect to work not found to be satisfactory coupled with the
fact that the appreciation certificate issued by the authorities on 10.12.2024,
the impugned order itself becomes unsustainable. Under these circumstances,
the impugned order is quashed. The matter is relegated to the authorities to
reconsider the case of the petitioner for extension of the contract period
taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Swati Priyadarshini (Supra). The entire exercise be completed within
30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. With these observations, petition is disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
