Ramesh Kumar Ogre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramesh Kumar Ogre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2025

                                                     1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                                         2025:CGHC:39931


                                                                                            NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                          WPS No. 2107 of 2021


          1 - Ramesh Kumar Ogre S/o Late R.L.Ogre Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind
          Palas71, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur,chhattisgarh.,
          District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               ... Petitioner(s)


                                                   versus


          1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Welfare
          Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur,
          Chhattisgarh.,            District          :              Raipur,             Chhattisgarh


          2 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
          Chhattisgarh


          3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.,
          District                   :                    Raigarh,                       Chhattisgarh


          4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District- Raigarh,
          Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L.
For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Shri G.S. Patel, Advocate.
2

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.08.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated

12.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby the services of the petitioner have

been terminated from the post of Rojgar Sahayak.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was

appointed to the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Janpad Panchayat

Sarangarh, District Raigarh vide order dated 4.12.2017 on a

contractual basis. He would further submit that the services of the

petitioner were extended from time to time. He would also submit that

vide order dated 22.04.2020, respondent No. 3 declined to extend the

further services of the petitioner, and thus, his services were

discontinued. He would contend that the Annual Confidential Report

(ACR) of the petitioner pertaining to 2019-20 was not found “Excellent”

or “Very Good”; rather, grade “Good” was awarded to the petitioner,

and it was the reason for the termination of services. He would further

contend that the ACR of 2019-20 was never communicated to the

petitioner, and therefore, the order dated 22.04.2020 is bad in law. In

support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Humendra Kumar Pawade

vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, W.A. No. 813 of 2018.

3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would

oppose. They would submit that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR)

for the year 2019-20 of the petitioner was not found in consonance with

Rule 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment)

Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 2012), therefore, the
3

competent authority took a decision not to extend the services of the

petitioner. They would further submit that the order impugned is neither

stigmatic nor punitive in nature; therefore, the instant petition deserves

to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings

and the order impugned.

5. Perusal of the Annexure P/1 dated 12.02.2021 and the return filed by

the respondents would reveal that the Annual Confidential Report

(ACR) of 2019-2020 of the petitioner was not communicated, and the

same was the foundation for the termination of services.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt v Union of India

and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, has held that the employer has to

communicate the ACR of each and every year to its employees.

7. Further, Rule 15(3) of the Rules, 2012, provides that the confidential

report of the employee, appointed on contract, shall be recorded so

that his work may be assessed in case he is to be considered for

appointment on contract basis for the next year and for such

continuation, the ACR should be ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, thus, the

right has been given to the employees to approach the respondent

authorities by making a representation for upgradation of adverse

entries in the ACRs.

8. Referring to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt

(supra), it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

that the petitioner cannot be treated adversely without seeking his

representation or explanation about the ACR, which was not

communicated to him, therefore, the order of discontinuation of
4

employment is rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. This court is convinced that the order of discontinuation of contract

appointment of the petitioner deserves to be quashed for the reason

that the confidential report of the person, appointed on contract, shall

be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he is to be

considered for appointment on contract basis for the next year and for

such continuation, the ACR/PAR should be ‘Excellent’ or ‘Very Good’.

Once the Rule itself provides that the ACR or PAR would form the

basis for according the benefit of extension of contract employment, it

goes without saying that a contract employee has a right to represent

against the ACR, which may work adversely to his interest if the same

is not of the required standard. Even if a contract employee is not

entitled to hold the post, if the Rules itself provide for consideration of

ACR or PAR as a measure to assess the suitability, the law laid down

by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) would apply with full force

for the reason that if an employee is entitled to any benefit out of the

ACR or PAR, the same has to be communicated without which it

cannot be considered against the employee.

10. It is also to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has settled in a

number of cases that when an authority takes a decision which may

have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the

principles of natural justice would at once come into play. (See: State

of Maharashtra v Public Concern for Governance Trust and

Others, (2007) 3 SCC 587).

11. A contract employee or for that matter any public servant may not have

the right of prior opportunity of hearing before writing of ACR, but once
5

it is considered for giving or for not giving any benefit, the same has to

be communicated to the person before taking any decision qua the

benefit which may be bestowed to the contract employee on the basis

of such ACR.

12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt (supra),

the order Annexure P/1 dated 12.02.2021 is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed.

13. The competent authority shall now provide the petitioner an opportunity

to represent against the ACR/PAR, and based on the decision on the

petitioner’s representation, the competent authority shall consider the

issue afresh concerning the continuation of contract employment on

the post of Rojgar Sahayak.

14. It is made clear that there shall be no order as to the back wages.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi