(5) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE :CHHATTISGARH:BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION N0 : 1515 OF 2005 ( A»®NDED WRIT PETITION ) PETITIONERS \::.A .f 1< Ku.Mamta Naidu aged 3Q yrs^ d/o Shri Ramesh Rao Naidu, Dressor : CHC- Manora PHC- S.onkyari^ Dis.tt-Jas.hpur 2. Nilanchal S-ingh aged 23 yrs^ s/o Shri Dhansai MultipurpQS.e Worker : MPW CHC-Farsabahar PHC-Ganjiyadih^Distt-Jashpur 3. Pradeep Shukla aged 37 yrs^ s/o Shri Mitthu Shukla Multipurpose Worker:MPW PHC-LQdam : Distt-Jas.hpur CG 4. Saroj Kumar Bhagat aged 23 yrs^ s/o Shri Gulab Ram Bhagat MultipurpQse Worker :MPW PHC-LQdam : Distt-Jashpur C.G 5. Rajendra Ramshri aged 28 yrs^ s/o sh-r-i Ja-lashu Ram MultipurpQse Worker : MPW PHC-LQdam : Distt-Jashpur CG 6. Sukh Sagar Nisad aged 31 yrs s/o Shri Benudhar Ram MultipurpQse Worker : MPW PHC-Kudukela : Distt-Jashpur -VERSUS- 1. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department : Mantralaya : DKS Bhavan : Raipur CG 2. The Joint Director, Health Services, Directorate :Health Services Raipur CG <2jc^^-^^£ ^——- ^ 3. The Chief Medical and Health Qfficer, Jashpurnagar, Dis.tt ~ Jas.hpur C.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^ HIHCfTT5h^|ch 3^ ^l^lK-l^, ^TfI^^KS, Rldl^^< 341^1 ^5(ch H^ 200 f^^;' 3TI^?T^T f^TNT3Tr^T 5h^ich^rf^T kpN^ s 3TT^T?^TW^cT 29-4-2005 On a mention being made, Mr. R. Dayal Shrivastava, a Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawa| respondents. W.P.No.1643/2005 filed No.1515/2005 filed by Kum. No.1644/2005 filed by Dev 5\n^ tne of the petitioners as Heatth Wor .. ^^<A^t their services have been Cs^w^^ expiration of two years' period, therefore, they have chaiienged of the orders dated 31st Marchl Heaith Officer, Jashpurnagar. h| disposed of by this common orde| Heord both the counset on| In W.P.No.1644/2005, the| basis vide ord^rs Annexures P-1 dut^d ll-/-£:uu3 (AnncAurc P-^ -ppointment of tl'e petit'^r^rs) Au9ust,2003. In W.P.No.16434 is^jed in compliance of the lette ^i<<f<vi41^ ^i^^T^te^)'<Ri^i< ^3ff^TW^T matter is taken up for hearing. unsel for the petitioners. Government Advocate for the State/ |by Salik Ram <& 22 others; W.P. Mlamta Naidu <& five others; and V^.P. Ram <& 30 others relate to appointment >r|<ers for aj)eriod of two years, and now by the impugned order before the after giving them one month's notice, rhe tlegality, propriety and correctness 2005 issued by the Chief Medical <& ence, the above writ petitions are being admission. petitioners were appointed on contract 13 to P-63 in compliance of the ietter issued by r'espondent No.l aria rhe wa^ for two years with effect from !005 appointmen-i of 23 petitioners was dated 11-7-2003 (Anne;-i(re P-Z) :jnder XI-HC-22 HIHC^I (hHlch 3^r ^i^i^, ^twi?, Ir^rnTy 341^*1 4^ch W 200 f^& 3TT^nT?FT RFIT^W^T [ Sb^fch^f?(T 3T^^TfW^rfNr ''^ ' - ^ Sb^fch ! orders Annexures P-26 to petitioners appointment was also 7-2003 (Annexure P-2) under Anij The main ground taken appointment of the petitioners expire in the month of /\ugu services cannot be terminated til Mr. R. Dayal Shrivastavo) argued that as per condition petitioners have received one w removed from service under tlt Heaith Workers. He submitted terminated on the ground that Workers their services are bei that as per clause 8 when the p4 they ccinnot be removed. On the other hand, Mr. Advocate argued that in th| recruitment of traini@tf Healtt" relevance in the facts and \^\^^-^> termination envisoges that the contract a^. cf, (<4l^zT|4 iTTT^ft^ ^fe^t <^^l< ^3Tf^TW^?T 1-48. and in W.P.No.1515/2005 the issued in compliQnce di letter datcd 11- hexures P-9 to P-14. |in these writ petitions is that The ^as for two years and that is going to ^t, 2005, therefore, the petiticrers the expiry of that period. learned counsel for the petitioners ^Io.S of the appointment tetters, the ^ek training, therefore, they cannot be \e pretext that they are not trained that the petitioners'Services are being for the appointment of trained Health ig terminated. He further submitted ^titioners have already received Training Sanjay 5'nyam Agrawal, learned Govt. ^rt^e^/' termination order the <^leier for /' . ct4use Workers' is innocuous and has no rcumstances. This is" a- simpticiter 7 of the oppointment letter which ointment con be terminated by giving J^lr^li Xl-HC-22 3^T ^l^id^T, ^il1y]l<i, ^IT^ 3TP^T4?|ch ^I^tc^l 9h^|ch ^ 200 ».-<'^s 3TT^?T^T RHT^3TT<?T $t)^ich<ETf^(T 3TI^T ?^<TTW &fe<T -'^ month's prior notice by any of clause. the termination order N petitioners are not entitted fo petitions. Having heard learned coun^el for the partie^I have perused the record. Perusat of the appointm| were appointed period of two years at the fix< contract basis to work as Health giving one month's advance notic^ this condition has been complie<| to undergo one week training o^f ^^^,z[{3: ^i^f^ ^ ^r<fi ^TW^R ^^T^TW^T he parties, and in comptiance of that has been pass^d. Therefore. the any retief sought for in these wnt ent letters shows that the petttioners for a ^d salary of Rs.2,000/- per month on Workers. Ciause 7 of the appointment letters envisages that the contrc^ct appointment can be terminated after by dny of the parties. In these cases, with. Even though it is mentioned in clause 8 of the appointment let^ers that the petitioners were required ter entering into service in order to discharge their duties, even if -\ training in compliance of this clai^ has been given to the employ^r and employee both that they can terminate their controct by givi^g one month's prior notice and the same has been done in these cases. TH is no meritin.these writ petition^ For this view, I am supporl he petitioners have received one week ise, Clause 7 ccxnnot be ignored. A rsght erefore, I am of the opinion that there ed by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Shailaja Shivajir^o Patil vs. President, Hon'ble Khasdar XI-HC-22 ^l^dl $.hH|ch 3^T ^l^ld4, ^T{l^jt<o, fc)dWy< 311^1 4^«'h ?H: 200 7< Ri^ W^T^)T R;;TNT'3:H^T t^Hf?( $WT^^T^cT Soma ^^ y :.T..71,; ^,,^^^^j^^^ -^. werjs U^S Sanstha and others repor-| school teacher was appointed on probation period her services her termination was valid being terminated at any time without order it was mentioned that th| required, but there was a mentio|n certain draw backs in her work, stigma and without enquiry she Apex Court rejecting the plea h< teFminQtion order passed by the In the present cases, t^( month's prior notice, and after 9} services have been terminated. infirmity in the orders impugned.j In the result, the writ pe|t stage itself. Consequentty, M.(W.)P.No|: I.A.Nos.3170/2005, 3205/2005 ^ ttien chi^f<vi41vi <4i^<"iT ^ tel^tr<'Rt«i< ^)3l1^T3n^T fed in (2002) 10 5CC 394, in which a robation^for two years and during that ^ terminated, the Apex Court held that a tenure appointment which could be n|otice. In that case, in the termination i^ petitioner's services were no longer thot she was wamed in writing about the empioyee challenged that it is a kould not have been terminated. The •Id that during tenure appointment the ^espondents was valid. lie contract was terminabie with one fing one month's notice the petitioners' fherefore, I do not find any illegality or ttitions are dismissed, at the admission ^.1176/2005, 1281/2005, 1285/2005, ^nd 3206/2005 stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^^T^?rs7-T)