The Chhatisgarh High Court has held that an order of non-extension of contractual services, especially on the grounds of allegations, has civil consequences and hence cannot be passed without awarding an opportunity of hearing to the employee.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quahsing of order of discontinuation of the Petitioner’s employment as Rojgar Sahayak.

The single bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu observed, "...The order of non- extension of his services is having the civil consequences, more so, when the non-extension is on the ground of leveling of allegations against the petitioner of negligence in discharging his services and remaining absent from service......Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 4 erred in not extending the period of service of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing......"

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Pallav Mishra while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ritesh Giri (Panel Lawyer).

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak. He contended that though the appointment of the Petitioner was on contract for a period of one year, the period of contract was extended from time to time and he continuously worked from the year 2007 to 2017 and thereafter, his period of appointment was not renewed/extended without assigning any reason. Petitioner thereafter, approached the authorities on many occasions, seeking the reason for non-extension of the period of service, upon which, the Respondent informed the petitioner that he remained absent from his service and meetings and was negligent in work.

It was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the reasons assigned for non-extension of the period of service only later and was not given the copies of the ACRs of each year for which he has worked with the respondents, nor he was intimated in any manner by writing a letter stating that his work is not satisfactory and all of a sudden, the decision was taken not to extend the period of service of the petitioner on which, he has worked for about 10 years continuously.

He contended that the non-extension of the period of service, on the adverse reasons had civil consequences and therefore, no such decision could have been taken by the respondents without following the due procedure of law of issuing show-cause notice seeking a reply on the allegations and therefore actions taken by the Respondent are bad in law.

The Court found that along with the reply, notice and other documents showing the list of documents that were served upon the Petitioner is not made available by the Respondent.

"From the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that specific order of removing the petitioner was not issued/served upon him. However, after completion of the period of 01 year, the period of service is not extended further from the year 2017. On the said date, petitioner has continuously served his services though on contract basis which was extended time to time from 2008 to 2017," the Court stated.

The Court pointed out that as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012, it was mandatory upon the Respondents to write the ACRs which can be considered for extending the period of contract and evaluation of the services/work done by the Petitioner.

Noting that the Respondents have not brought on record that the Petitioner was supplied with copies of ACRs from time to time of each year, the Court observed that an opportunity of hearing must have been awarded to the Petitioner before ruling against extension of his service.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Dev Singh Parmar vs. State Of Chhattisgarh (2024:CGHC:49250)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Pallav Mishra, Advocate Ritesh Giri (Panel Lawyer),

Respondent- Advocate Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Ravish Verma

Click here to read/ download Order



Chhattisgarh High CourtJustice Parth Prateem Sahu

Sheetal Joon