Satish Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 81 Wps/5378/2018 ... on 21 August, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Chattisgarh High Court

Satish Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 81 Wps/5378/2018 ... on 21 August, 2018

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                               1

                                                                                   NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   WPS No. 4937 of 2018

             Satish Sharma S/o Late Shri Surendra Sharma, aged about 32 years,
             R/o DMQ-10, Gurudwara Road, Vishrampur, Tehsil Surajpur, P.S.
             Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.).
                                                                          ---Petitioner
                                              Versus
       1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural
          Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.).
       2. Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
          Guarantee Scheme Commission Council, Naya Raipur (C.G.).
       3. Collector-cum-District Coordinator (MNREGA), District Surajpur (C.G.).
       4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surajpur
          (C.G.).
                                                                     ---Respondents

For petitioner : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

For respondents No. 1 & 3 : Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer. For respondent No.4 : Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21/08/2018

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is for quashment of order dated 04/07/2018 the petitioner's contractual employment has not been renewed by the respondents.

2. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the contract period or the contractual employment of the petitioner has been terminated half way through the contract period. It is a case where the petitioner has been permitted to perform his duties through the entire contractual period for which he was engaged. Thereafter, it is exclusively 2 within the domain of the respondents to decide whether renewal has to be granted to a contractual employee or not.

3. The High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not substitute itself as an agency to decide the eligibility of the petitioner for renewal.

4. The only relief which this Court can give to the petitioner is for making a suitable representation to the higher authorities for reconsidering the claim for renewal of contractual employment.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-


                                                            (P. Sam Koshy)
Sumit                                                           JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court