HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SATISH K. AG^^HOTRI WRIT PETITION No. 4021 of2003- PETITIONER Ku. Dileshwari Darshan S/'o Babulal Darshan, Village-Supkalo, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattissarh Tfarough: Secretary Department OfPanchayat & Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Panchayat, Raigarh Through: CollectQr Raigarh District - Panchavat. Oflice Raigarh fC.G.V i.jw*.3 3. Janpad , Panehayat Dharamjaigarli, Through: C.E.O., Janpad Panchayat Office Dharamjaigarh, Tah. &Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat,Village-Ratanpur, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh. WRH PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. Present: Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondentNo. 1 Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Advocate for the respQndent no. 3. (Passed on 18ul<iay ofApril, 2007) 1. The petitioner, vide orderdated 24.82002 (AnriexureP/1) was appointed as Teacher (Shiksha KanniGrade'III) ori cpntractforthe academic session which came t6 an end with| closyre of the 2 ifh 2. academic session on 30 April, 2003. Thereafter, the appointment ofthe petitioner was not continued. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the non- continuation of her appointment on the ground that tiie rules provide for consideratiQn ofhercase for extension ofthe contract period. The second'grievance oftfae petitioner is that she has not been paid the salary from 27.8.2002 to 30.04.2003 for Ihe period she has worked as Shiksha Karmi Grade III. 3. The contention ofthe leamed counsel for petitioner with regard to her continuatibn in service is noticed to be rejected 6n the simple ground tliat a person appointed on contract has no right of continuation or regularisation.pfservice as the appointment itselfis dehors the constitutional seheme ofemployment. With regard to the second contention, it is admitted case ofall the parties and the leamed counsel appearing^ for the respondent no. 3 lias fairiy conceded that ifthe payment faas not been made to him, then'she is entifled to the same. 4.. In view ofthat, the petition is allowed in part and the respondent no. 4 is directed to make the payment ofsalary to fhe petitioner for the period, she has worked from 27.08.2002 to 30.04.2003 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.No order as to costs, SdA. , Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aj-p.it