IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^'U(\\ /20U PM'ITIONER . ^>- ^'./"'^' ,0^--W' €^y ^ ^•y'T ^y / RESPONDENTS Rameshwar Prasad Kushwaha s/o Shri Vishwanath Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 23 years, Block Coordinator, Total Sanitation Campaign, Baikunthpur, r/o Amhar, Patna, District Koria (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary & Ministry of • Public Health Engineering Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) r 2 Collector & President, District 1' Water and Sanitation Committee, District Koria (C.G.) 3 Member Secretary & Executive Engineer, District Water & Sanitation Committee, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Baikunthpur, District ~r Koria (C.G). 4. Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Sub Division Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA NIH^l ^*fSc(s ^^ •^l^t<r(^, ^Tll<H^, ?®ldl'y^ . wj,^-^ 11/^1•^200 W^T Tra^ (1[jqf5^r) ^^ ^T R^Jch TI^H 3?1^T $t>^icb '^CTW^f^n^^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shj'ivastava, J. 30-06-2011 Shri A. K. Shukla, counsel for the ^n^feph 'WT^f *R* fet^t ^^K '^3Tf^:T3Tr^I petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel L^wyer for the State/respondent on advance copy. Heard. This petition has been filed by th^ to payment of arrears of salary as also ft services of the petitioner on contract bas appointment. Learn^d counsel for the petitio| contractual appointment was not done report of the petitioner has not been rec^ report has been submitted by the r| thereafter, no decision has been taken| whether, his services should be continuj allowed to continue and he is dischargin| petitioner submitted that if the petitioner| has been taken from him, he is entitled fc] On the other hand, learned State| cannot claim continuanCe in service as o| concerned, he submits that the same wo| As far as petitioner'sclaim for co( issuance of order of renewal of contrac) can be issued by this Court. Whethe| continued, is a matter to be considered petitioner for issuance of a direction )r issuance of a direction to continue |s by issuing a fresh order of contract her submitted that the renewal of [)n the ground that the performance |eived, but later on, the performance ^spondent No.3. hle submits that ;in the Case of the petitioner, as to ^d or not,but the petitioner is being ^ his duties. Learned counsel for the Ihas been allowed to work and work \r payment of salary. [counsei submitted that the petitioner ^ right. As far as payment of salary is ^jld be considered by the authority. itinuance in service and direction for itual appointment, no such direction contractual appointment is to be oy the concerned authority based on exigency of service, satisfactory perfoj'mance of work etc. A contractual appointee as a right can not claim that |he should be allowed to continue in ton<?W, ^I^TT^Tra—FS/140—2/20; I -1,50,000,, . ^;^.^^^ y:v{ l', 1 // ^^\^ ^^ T^l<^l<r)^, ^ft^^, t^TRT^^ <ffW(l^<fl^ •°^200 ^n^i/^ra^ (^pt^^?) ^B^l'^T'f^N? ^d ^^l sb^Jcb t)rp Tumane L ^CTW^^T^R^r •<L- service irrespective of the aforesaid con^ by the appointing authority. However, as] ^nfeFSh ^w^ "^ 'fe^t Tfe^K ^^tRm^^i deration, which has to be made only it has been stated before this Court that other contractual appointees are c()ntinuing in service on the basis of fresh renewal order and subsequently, r^port of the petitioner has also been submitted, which is not adverse to him, appointing authority, as to whether tl| petitioner shpuld be continued or not. T] obliged under the law to consider this as(j Accordingly, it is directed that thej aspect and decide the matter on its own |t is a matter of consideration by the ^e contractual appointment of the he respondent authority is therefore ^ect and take decision ih that regard. respondent No.2 shall considerthis hierits, as to whether, services of the petitioner on contract basis should be cc|ntinued or not. As far as petitioner's submission that the petitioner has been from him, salary of that period has not bontinued and work has been taken |been given to him, this matter also requires consideration by the respond^nt No.2. If the petitioner has been altowed to continue and work has b^en taken from him, certainly, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salar^ of that period, during which, he has worked. However, number of days, he |has actually worked, is a matter of enquiry, to be held by the respond^nt No.2 as directed, or in case, respondent No.2 so considered by respc|ndent No.3 or respondent No.4. It is expected that the matter shall be decidecj With the aforesaid obser/ation, th| as expeditiously as possible. 3 petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge '!^^^ ^^ v^m^f, ^^Tr^rra— FS/140—2/20 ; I • -1,50,000.