IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.538 [2005 $mJ§E@ §%@£f§@[§? APPELLANT ppellant] Plaintiff Sf a Shri Sadaram Sahu, RI o Village— Kamkabada, Tahsil — Saja, District —— Durg (C.G.) Z ,Ramesh Kumar Sahu, - Varsus - RESPONDENTS - ,1. State of Chhattisgarh, Res ondents Defendants; Through- Collector, Durg. /2 Additional Chief Executive OEcer, Zila Panchayat, Durg, OEce— Zila Panchayat, Durg. 3./ Chief Executive OEcerk Janpaa Panchyat Saja, District— Durg. if. SarpanCh, Village Panchayat Kamkabada, Tahsil— Saja, District— Durg. Shri Naresh Kumar Nagvanshi, Village— Kamkabada, State of M. P. ( Now State of C.G.) Thraugh Collector, Sarguja (C.G.). V/ SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. ‘01 ”l / XI—HC—78 WWO$OQONvO¢§OOO ‘ l‘x .' v- 3% OO‘OW 200A r‘ mW<W> . WWW mmm WW%’WW %aql%n3nésu \J 1§.a1,2oay‘é AppeHan? by 5hri Vinay Fandey, Advocafe. Sfafe by 5hri Akhil Agrawd, P.L. Heard on admission. 7 The appelianf is aggriev d by the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2005 passed by ihe Dis? ici Judge. Durg in Civil Appeal No. 25-A of‘2003 whereby fhe judgmen and decree passed in Civii Suif No. 19- A 6f 2002 da'fed 23.06390 dismissing the piainiiff’s suit was affirmed. ‘ihe appainimenf cf fhe piainiiff/appeiianf was purely Temporary in nafure and his services could be ferminafed cf any Tim wii‘houf pricr noiice. It is also not in dispuie Thai The order of fer ination dafed 29.03.1999 was an order of removal simplicii‘er wiihouf If is no? dispuied fhai attaching any stigma. In this view of The mailer, boi‘h fhe Courts below have righfly held ihai‘ prior notice or hearing was not necessary. I am of the censiderec opinion that the impugned judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. EE5-A of 2003 is impeceable and no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. This appeal being devoid admission. No order as to costs. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd-I RT.O. of merit is dismissed at the stage of