SBCWP NO.15542/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15542/2009. Raja Ram Meena Versus District Collector Tonk & Ors. Date of Order:- May 10, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Suresh Kumar Pareek for the petitioner. Shri Ganesh Parihar, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sahayak on 24/12/2007 on contract basis. On completion of one year, he was granted increment vide order dated 20/5/2009 extending the above contract. Petitioner was served with the notice on 10/7/2009 by the Programme Officer Panchayat Samiti Niwai that he was responsible for the loss of account book and for not maintaining account book properly. It is contended that the Paden Sachiv was responsible for the safe custody and maintenance of the cash book. SBCWP NO.15542/09. 2 2) Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice on 10/7/2009 which was replied by the petitioner on 14/7/2009 but his reply was not found satisfactory. Services of the petitioner were engaged on contract basis and in that capacity, petitioner could not insist for continuation of his contract. He was negligent in discharge of duties. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also the reply filed by the respondents, I find that it is not borne out whether petitioner was ever assigned duty to maintain the cash book. However, on the second aspect whether petitioner was responsible for the theft of the cash book from the office, apparently it appears that the Gram Sewak was duly charged to maintain and keep custody of the cash book which for the time being was given to the custody of the petitioner. All those issues have not been satisfactorily laid by the respondents in their order. Although in my view, petitioner does not have any right to insist upon continuation of contractual appointment but it is also equally true that so long as contract SBCWP NO.15542/09. 3 was surviving, he could not have abruptly been removed. 4) Having regard to the facts of the case, I require the petitioner to again approach the Coordinator-cum-District collector and raise all those grounds which he has raised before this Court. He shall examine his representation and pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks. The interim order passed by this Court on 11/1/2010 shall continue and shall be co- terminus with the order passed by the District Collector. 5) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil