Arun Kumar Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State.

Also heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 1 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 58 days is condoned.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3598 of 2019 (Arun Kumar Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division by which the petitioner’s appeal against discontinuation of the petitioner on 29.08.2016 on the post of Programme Co-ordinator has been assailed, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality as no adverse ACR of the appellant has been communicated till the contractual period is extended. The Additional Commissioner was rejected the appeal on the count that there is no provision of filing of an appeal against non-extension of contractual period as according to the appellate authority, it is not a termination, but is a non-extension of contractual period. He further submits that from bare perusal of the Annexure P/9 (in the writ petition), it is quite vivid that it is a termination. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while dismissing the writ petition. As such, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General supports the impugned order.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.09.2022 disposed of the writ petition of the appellant by observing as follows:

“3. As per Annexure P/5, it is evident that the contractual period of the petitioner has not been extended, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner does not warrant any interference. It is quite clear that even non-extension of contractual period of the petitioner does not debar the petitioner to participate in other contractual appointment issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh or for regular appointment.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of.”

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in right perspective. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.