‘ x ‘ K HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISG ‘ AT BXLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1‘070 of2009 PETITIONER : - _ r Surendra Kumar Rathiya, son of Shri Dharam Lal Rathlya aged‘ about 28 years Technical Ass1stant, Janpad Panchayat Bhalyathan, Block and P S BIRalyathan, Emmet Sarguja, K Chhathsgarh VERSUS l RESPONDENTS :1. §tate of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary, 'Depamnent of Panchayat and Rural DeveIOpment Ra1pur Chhattlsgarh 2'. Chlef Executive (Diflcer Dxstnct Panchayat Sarguja D1str1ct Sarvuja Chhathsgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB Hon’ble $111 Satlsh K Aonlhotn, J Present: ‘ shrl K N Nande Advocate tor the pet1t1oner Shrl Y S Thakur Deput Advocate General for the State/ rese ‘ ORAL ORDER V‘ {(P'assed on 25m day of February, 2009) 1. I’ The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant at Janpad V Panehayat; Bhaiyathan, District Surguja on 30m August 2008 ‘(Anne‘mre P/2) m acCordance With the Chhattlsgarh Cwxl C1v11 Sewa (Samv1da Nlyuktr) Nlvam 2004 (for short ‘the Niyam 2004 ) named 1n i exerCIse ofpower under Armle 309 ofthe Const1tut1on of Indla. 2, in the appointment order itself, it was provided that the contract apnointment was for a period of one year and during that period, the siervices of the petitioner can be terminated by'either side by giving one i V -i fnonth’s notice in~ advance or one months salary in lieu of that. This t -c‘:ondition is prescribed in Rule 14(ii) of the Niyam, 2004 also. Accordingly, in accordance with rules, on 28.01.2009 an order 'wa's passed disengaginv the services of the petitioner with effect from 03 03 2009 atter a period of one month two days As per requirement of ‘ a law, this 1s suffic1ent notice ui 'J’ \ y pondnts Amit Learned counsel appearing for the pe itioner submits that since the petitioner has received the notice on 19.02.2009, this cannot be . considered as one month’s notice. One onth’s notice has to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice, and not fi‘om‘the date of dispatch ofthe notice. ‘ It is weH-settled that dispatch of notice is important. The notice period was more than 30 days. Therefore, the orider impugned herein is just and . proper and aEords one month’s time as required under law. There is no merit in this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, summarily. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, for ad-interim writ/stay, also stands F"I dismissed. (. ‘ Sd/- k Satish K. Agnihotri Judge NsMV ¥ ‘ e <5; .g