Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarita Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214
1 WP-6589-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6589 of 2023
SMT. SARITA TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Teerathraj Pillai - P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents No.2, 5 and 6 .
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
i) To quash the impugned order date 1.3.2023 (annexure P/13) and order dated 28.12.2022 (annexure P/9) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstated the services of the petitioner on the post of District Manager, Micro Finance, M.P. Rural Livelihood Mission, Zila Panchayat, Jabalpur, district Jabalpur, M.P.
ii) To produce relevant record pertaining to the impugned order 1.3.2023 (anneuxre P/13).
iii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on 2.8.2018 on the post of District Manager, Micro Finance, M.P. Rural Livelihood Mission, Zila Panchayat, Jabalpur on contract basis w.e.f. 2.8.2018 to 1.4.2020 and thereafter further w.e.f. 1.4.2020 to 16.2.2021. That, a show cause notice dated 26.9.2022 was issued to the petitioner regarding recovery of amount under section 89 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 2 WP-6589-2023 Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, in regard to financial irregularities committed by the petitioner in the financial year 2021-22, for depositing Rs.1,14,500/- on 4.10.2022 failing which further proceedings under section 89 and 92 of the Act would be carried out and the renewal of contract of the petitioner services have been declined. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice stating that she has not constructed any work and the said work was carried out by Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata, Smooh, hence, respondent no.6 issued notice to other members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner as well as other members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh appeared and submitted their statements stating that the work was carried out by Swa Sahayata Samooh, but the said fact was not considered and the petitioner has been transferred by order dated 27.12.2022 from Jabalpur to Seoni. Further, the respondent no.4 vide impugned order dated 28.12.2022 declined to renew the contract of the petitioner observing the fact of Financial irregularity as per audit report dated 19.11.2021 by ASAN & Associates, ii) Medically unfit for work 94 leaves in a year and iii) poor attitude towards work and objectives of NRLM and declined to interfere with the ACRs of the petitioner recorded by the C.E.O. Zila Panchayat so also declined to renew the contract of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.12.2022, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.3, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 1.3.2023 by affirming the order dated 28.12.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 3 WP-6589-2023 the respondent is contrary to clause 9.2 of the policy dated 24.2.2020 issued by the respondent no.1 as well as the law laid down by Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1166/2017. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4 did not consider the fact that petitioner never carried out the work of construction of concerned buildings which was constructed by Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Smooh. Without considering the statements of the President as well as members of Maa Narmada Swa Sahayata Samooh as well as the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner neither held any substantive post in Govt. Department nor as per contract can claim for continuation. The petitioner has no pre-existing legal right to continue in contract service. Since there is no foundation for continuation in contract service as there is no contract in existence, thus the writ petition, on the face of record, is not maintainable. To bolster his submission, counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3032/2021 (Shyam Babu Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 12.2.2021, in W.P.No.8150/2011 (Rajendra Prasad Bakoria Vs. Secretary, State of M.P.) decided on 26.8.2016 , judgment of Hon. Apex court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 4 WP-6589-2023 Diamond & Gem Development Corp. Ltd., (2013)5 SCC 470, Bareilly Development Authority Vs. Ajay Pal Singh, (189)2 SCC 116, State of UP Vs. Bridge & Roof Co. India Ltd., (1996)6 SCC 22, Kailash Singh Vs. Mayo College, (2018) 18 SCC 216, and Lekhraj Satharam Das Lalvani Vs. N.M.Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 . It is further submitted that in the present case the ACR of the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and accordingly, the contract agreement was not renewed. The petitioner does not have any vested legal right to claim renewal /extension of contract tenure. The non-renewal of contract vide impugned order is in accordance with clause 2 of the terms and conditions of contract and the terms are not challenged. Since the contract has not been extended due to non-fulfillment of clause 2 of conditions of contract, hence, non-renewal of contract is neither malafide nor stigmatic, hence, no opportunity of hearing is necessary. Thus, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's contract has not been renewed recording certain aspersions, however, when the order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/9) has been perused, it is found by this Court that in the ACRs of the year 2021-22, some findings have been recorded regarding working of the petitioner. The petitioner was reported to be involved in financial irregularities in audit report for which notices dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P/5) and 07.10.2022 (Annexure P/6) have been issued. Petitioner was also served with notice dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/4) for deposit of the amount of Rs.1,14,500/- under Section 89 of the Act of 1993. The entire Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 5 WP-6589-2023 petition is silent on the point that the petitioner has submitted the reply or not. It is not gathered from the pleadings that the petitioner has submitted the reply denying the allegations meaning thereby the allegations which were based on the audit report have not been denied by the petitioner. It is also seen that the ACRs of the year 2021-22 was not challenged by the petitioner before any competent authority or any other forum, as such the ACRs remained unrebutted and uncriticized. It is also not pleaded that in response to the notice dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner has replied or challenged the said action of the respondents before the appropriate forum, therefore, on the basis of the record, it is found that the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing in both the proceedings initiated under Section 89/92 of the Act of 1993 as well as for non-continuation of the contract but from the perusal of the record, the petitioner has not submitted any reply and thus, there was no occasion for the authority to consider the case of the petitioner on imaginary basis.
7. The order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/9) is a non-extension of contract simplicitor that does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The order contains certain observations of the ACRs which petitioner has not challenged prior to the said order. As it is observed hereinabove that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing in both the proceedings but the petitioner has failed to submit any reply or cogent material before this Court to contradict the same, thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated 28.12.2022 (Annexure P/9) is a non-continuation/non-renewal of contract simplicitor and that does not cast any stigma on the petitioner, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 6 WP-6589-2023 respondent has to form an opinion for non-continuation which has been formed on the basis of cogent material.
8. The case laws relied by the petitioner i.e. Malkhan Singh Malviya vs. State of M.P. (WA.No.1166/2017) and Srikant Singh vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.13619/2023) are distinguishable on facts because in the case of Malkhan Singh (supra) the employee in that case was terminated on the basis of allegations without conducting inquiry and in the case of Srikant Singh (supra), the Court found that the order of non-renewal of contract is actually a termination order founded on the allegations which require substantial inquiry.
9. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing by issuance of notices Annexure P/4, P/5 and P/6 but petitioner has failed to submit any reply. The petitioner's case for financial irregularity has been considered under the Act of 1993 by issuance of notice under Section 89, however, the petitioner could not place any document to submit that whether petitioner has deposited the said amount or contested the said proceedings. Similarly, in response to the notices Annexure P/5 and P/6, the petitioner could not submit any cogent material that petitioner has contradicted the factual basis of the notice. In absence of such cogent material, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in the light of the case laws relied by the petitioner.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 has held as under :-
"Re: Question (i) -- Enforcement of a contract of personal service
17. Where the relationship of master and servant is purely Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 7 WP-6589-2023 contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well-recognised exceptions to this rule are:
(i) where a civil servant is removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India (or any law made under Article
309);
(ii) where a workman having the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated from service; and
(iii) where an employee of a statutory body is terminated from service in breach or violation of any mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules.
There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief-- damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs--is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corp. Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470 has held as under :-
"III. Contractual disputes and Writ Jurisdiction
19. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that matters/disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ court cannot be a forum to seek any relief based on terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement by the parties. [Vide Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 116 :
AIR 1989 SC 1076] and State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. [(1996) 6 SCC 22 : AIR 1996 SC 3515] ]"Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 8 WP-6589-2023
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Singh vs. Mayo College (2018) 18 SCC 216 has held as under :-
"21. We may also note that were the appellants to file a civil suit, the evidence would have been recorded, and the matter gone into a greater detail in a factual context. This is relevant from both aspects of seeking restoration of services and quantification of damages. The significant aspect is that there should not be specific performance of a master-servant contract of service, and damages should be the appropriate remedy.
22. We may refer to Vidya Ram Misra v. Shri Jai Narain College [Vidya Ram Misra v. Shri Jai Narain College , (1972) 1 SCC 623] , where in para 4, it was observed as under: (SCC pp. 624-25) "4 . It is well settled that, when there is a purported termination of a contract of service, a declaration that the contract of service still subsisted would not be made in the absence of special circumstances, because of the principle that courts do not ordinarily enforce specific performance of contracts of service (see U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Chandra KiranTyagi [U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi , (1969) 2 SCC 838] and Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Sukhdeo Rai [Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Sukhdeo Rai, (1971) 2 SCC 192] ). If the master rightfully ends the contract, there can be no complaint. If the master wrongfully ends the contract, then the servant can pursue a claim for damages. So even if the master wrongfully dismisses the servant in breach of the contract, the employment is effectively terminated.
In Ridge v. Baldwin [Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 :
(1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL)] Lord Reid said in his speech:
(Ridge case [Ridge v. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL)] , WLR p. 940) 'The law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There cannot be specific performance of a contract of service and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 9 WP-6589-2023 none. But if he does so in a manner not warranted by the contract he must pay damages for breach of contract. So the question in a pure case of master and servant does not at all depend on whether the master has heard the servant in his own defence: it depends on whether the facts emerging at the trial prove breach of contract. But this kind of case can resemble dismissal from an office where the body employing the man is under some statutory or other restriction as to the kind of contract which it can make with its servants, or the grounds on which it can dismiss them.'"
23. The aforesaid view is also adopted by the Constitution Bench i n Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis [Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis , (1973) 1 SCC 409 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 207] . We may usefully extract the observations in the following paras: (SCC p. 413, paras 15-19) "15. The cases of dismissal of a servant fall under three broad heads. The first head relates to relationship of master and servant governed purely by contract of employment. Any breach of contract in such a case is enforced by a suit for wrongful dismissal and damages. Just as a contract of employment is not capable of specific performance similarly breach of contract of employment is not capable of finding a declaratory judgment of subsistence of employment. A declaration of unlawful termination and restoration to service in such a case of contract of employment would be indirectly an instance of specific performance of contract for personal services. Such a declaration is not permissible under the Law of Specific Relief Act.
16. The second type of cases of master and servant arises under Industrial Law. Under that branch of law a servant who is wrongfully dismissed may be reinstated. This is a special provision under Industrial Law. This relief is a departure from the reliefs available under the Indian Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act which do not provide for reinstatement of a servant.
17. The third category of cases of master and servant arises in regard to the servant in the employment of the State or of other public or local authorities or bodies created under statute.
18. Termination or dismissal of what is described as a pure contract of master and servant is not declared to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 10 WP-6589-2023 a nullity however wrongful or illegal it may be. The reason is that dismissal in breach of contract is remedied by damages. It (sic.) [ To be read as "In".] the case of servant of the State or of local authorities or statutory bodies, courts have declared in appropriate cases the dismissal to be invalid if the dismissal is contrary to rules of natural justice or if the dismissal is in violation of the provisions of the statute. Apart from the intervention of statute there would not be a declaration of nullity in the case of termination or dismissal of a servant of the State or of other local authorities or statutory bodies.
19. The courts keep the State and the public authorities within the limits of their statutory powers. Where a State or a public authority dismisses an employee in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements or on grounds which are not sanctioned or supported by statute the courts may exercise jurisdiction to declare the act of dismissal to be a nullity. Such implication of public employment is thus distinguished from private employment in pure cases of master and servant."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 8 has held as under :-
"5. In our opinion, the order of the Deputy Custodian -- P-13 and P-16 -- removing the appellant from the management of the business is not vitiated by any illegality. But even on the assumption that the order of the Deputy Custodian terminating the management of the appellant is illegal, the appellant is not entitled to move the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reason is that a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdictions. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant as a Manager by the Custodian by virtue of his power under Section 10(2)(b ) of the 1950 Act is contractual in its nature and there is no statutory obligation a between him and the appellant. In our opinion, any duty or obligation falling upon a public servant out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant cannot be enforced by the machinery of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 11 WP-6589-2023 I n CIT v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd. [63 IA 408] an application was made under Section 45 for an order directing the Commissioner to set aside an assessment to income tax and to repay the tax paid by the applicant; the Bombay High Court made the order asked for but the decision of the Bombay High Court was set aside by the Judicial Committee. At p. 427 of the report it is observed by the Judicial Committee:
"Before Mandamus can issue to a public servant it must therefore be shown that a duty towards the applicant has been imposed upon the public servant by statute so that he can be charged thereon, and independently of any duty which as servant he may owe to the Crown, his principal."
A similar view has been expressed by the Calcutta High Court i n P.K. Banerjee v. L.J. Simonds [AIR 1947 Cal 307] . In our opinion, these cases lay down the correct law on the point."
14. In the case of Brahmadutta Gupta vs. State of M.P. 2004 (2) MPLJ 306 it is held as under :-
"10. Even otherwise if the case of the petitioner is examined with reference to the question of casting of stigma and opportunity of hearing, it is now well settled that if the allegations or irregularities which is complained of being the reason for termination is only a motivating factor, then no enquiry is necessary. It is well settled in law that enquiry or hearing is required only in such cases where the allegations is the foundation for taking action. In the present case as indicated hereinabove, petitioner had already retired, he was on contract appointment. His appointment was challenged on various ground in W.P. No. 1867/2003 (PIL) by the intervenors before this Court. Even though intervenors had levelled various allegations against the petitioner, the respondents instead of contesting the petitioner thought it appropriate to withdraw the contract appointment.
12. The facts and circumstances of the present case as analysed hereinabove clearly indicate that the respondents decided to terminate the contract appointment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract by innocuous order, simpliciter in nature and not on the basis of any allegations. Even if Public Interest Litigation and the allegations made therein had any bearing for taking the action, it only motivated the respondents to take action. It cannot be said that allegations in the Public Interest Litigations formed the basis for terminating the contract of the petitioner."Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64214 12 WP-6589-2023
15. On the basis of the aforesaid enunciation of law and factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not make out any case for judicial scrutiny of the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P/13). The order passed by the authorities is well within the four corners of the law and does not suffer from infirmity or unconstitutionality.
16. Thus, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 1/7/2026 11:13:07 AM