Santosh Kumar Khairwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy  Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 02.03.3021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1135 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner, as presented in the writ petition, was that he was appointed as Rozgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Jatga on contract basis @ Rs.2000/- per month by the respondent No.4 by issuing an order dated 16.09.2008 and that from time to time, such engagement was continued. It appears that contractual engagement of the petitioner was last extended for a period from 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2020. However, by an order dated 29.02.2020, relying on Rule 11(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012, the contract period having expired, the services of the petitioner was discontinued. In the order dated 29.02.2020, reference was also made to unsatisfactory performance of duty and negligence by the petitioner.

Subsequently, the respondent No.4 had issued a letter dated 05.02.2021 to the Sarpanch/Sachiv of the Gram Panchayats of Jhinpuri, Baniya, Chandrauti, Lamna, Tanakhar, Lad, Jatga and Manikpur to take steps for engagement of Rozgar Sahayaks.

The writ petition was filed on 08.02.2021 challenging the order dated 29.02.2020 and 05.02.2021.

The learned Single Judge held that as the order of discontinuance of engagement was passed on 29.02.2020, i.e., more than a year back, issuance of advertisement cannot be faulted with as the petitioner had not taken requisite steps to challenge the same at the appropriate time as a result of which the order of discontinuance had attained finality. However, liberty was grated to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities under the Scheme of MGNREGA for representing against the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 so far it related to adverse comments made against the petitioner in the said order.

The petitioner, in terms of the order of this Court dated 02.03.2021, submitted a representation to the respondent No.4, which was acknowledged on 17.03.2021.

Thereafter, this appeal was preferred before this Court on 27.03.2021.

Placing reliance on an order dated 24.06.2021 (Annexure-A/5) and an order dated 01.05.2020 (Annexure-A/6), it is contended by Mr. Sahu that even though the petitioner was disengaged from service, he was shown to be still engaged as Rozgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Jatga and therefore, his case may be favourably considered by this Court.

The petitioner having acted upon the order of learned Single Judge by filing representation in terms of the liberty granted to him, the petitioner again cannot turn around and assail the order of learned Single Judge by filing a writ appeal.

Be that as it may.

By the order dated 01.05.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner was deputed for duty in Quarantine Centre during the Covid-19 pandemic. By order dated 24.06.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner was engaged to discharge duty at the Vaccination Centre. There is no averment in the writ petition that pursuant to such orders, the petitioner had rendered services. It is apparent that Sub-Divsional Officer was not aware that the service of the petitioner had been discontinued on and from 29.02.2021.

It is seen from Annexure-A/4 of the appeal papers that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 17.03.2021 had been rejected holding that he could not be re-appointed. However, there is no consideration with regard to the adverse comments that found place in the order dated 29.02.2020.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be sub-served if the adverse comments, as noted in the order dated 29.02.2020, is expunged so that the petitioner does not have any difficulty in securing employment in the future. Ordered accordingly.

The writ appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with the above directions.