Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 352 (CHH)

KIRTICHAND EKKA v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-12-02

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the resolution dated 11-9-2005 (Annexure – P/l) passed by the Gram Sabha, Kopa, whereby the petitioner was disengaged from the services of Pane hay at Karmi. 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on the post of Pane hay at Karmi by order dated 21-8-2002 (Annexure - P/2) till March, 2003. Thereafter, without there being an order directing continuation of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi, according to the petitioner, the petitioner remained on service. Subsequently, by impugned resolution, the services of the petitioner came to an end. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner was contract employee, he could not have been removed without following the proper procedure, as enshrined under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules, 1999") wherein it is provided that "no order, imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service, any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (via) of rule 5 shall be passed except after a formal enquiry is held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided." Thus, the impugned resolution is bad in law, contrary to the statutory provisions and the same deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Rules, 1993 are not applicable in the present case because the petitioner was not a member of Pane hay at service. Indisputably the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis, which was valid till March, 2003 and thereafter, no order has been passed to continue the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel further - submits that the petitioner was never appointed as Panchayat Secretary under the provisions or Section 69(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7. It is evident that the petitioner was never appointed as Panchayat Karmi on regular basis. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period ending on March, 2003. The petitioner, it appears, continued thereafter, but without there being any order passed by the competent authority. 7. It is evident that the petitioner was never appointed as Panchayat Karmi on regular basis. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period ending on March, 2003. The petitioner, it appears, continued thereafter, but without there being any order passed by the competent authority. The impugned resolution dated 11-9-2005 (Annexure – P/l) disengaging the services of the petitioner does not make any difference, as the appointment of the petitioner itself cane to an end in the month of March, 2003. 8. It is well settled principle of law that the appointment on contract basis is a tenure appointment and the employee has no right after the period of contract is over even to continue in service. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others), Municipal Corpn. Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey2, Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others3 & Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others4). 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not a member of Panchayat service after March, 2003. Thus, the provision of the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the service of the petitioner came to an end in the month of March, 2003 itself. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed.