Government employees cannot be discontinued from service without valid reasons: High Court of Chhattisgarh
A government employee has the right to hold on to his job and cannot be discontinued from service without valid reasons such as misconduct, gross negligence, violation of specific service rules or other similar offences. Therefore a worker who has been removed from government service has the right to either be reappointed to service or to be given a valid reason for being discontinued from service. This issue has been addressed by a single member bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Justice Sam Koshy in the case of State of Chattisgarh v Rameshwar Prasad Katakwar [Writ Petition (L) No. 7412 of 2010] on the 11th of June 2021. The respondent, Rameshwar Prasad Katakwar is a 40 year old daily wage worker who worked under the state’s department of water resources from 1982 till 1995 when he was discontinued from service abruptly. He raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court in found that the he is entitled to the benefit of reinstatement without back-wages and passed an order 1st April 2010 for the same. The state of Chhattisgarh who are petitioners in this case, challenged the Labour Court’s order through a writ petition before the High Court in the same year. The court noted that on 8th March 2019, the new state government of Chhattisgarh passed an order regularising the respondent in service and that he has been working as a regular employee under the petitioners since then. Additionally it was noted that the respondent had served the petitioners for a considerable amount of time was nearing the end of his service career with only a few years left for him to reach the age of retirement.
 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 74110 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Water Resources DKS Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur The petitioner No.1 was not a party before the Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner No.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Govt. through the Secretary of the concerned department. 2. The Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Water Management Division Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (CG). Petitioner(s Rameshwar Prasad Katakwar aged about 40 years S o Khiruram Katakwar Ex. Chowkidar R o Village & Post Barra Thana Bamhanidih Tahsil Champa District Janjgir Champa Respondents For Petitioner State Shri Jitender Pali Dy. Advocate Shri SP Kale Advocate. Hon ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 01.05.2010 passed by the Labour Court Bilaspur in case No.44 ID Act 2009 (Ref.). Vide the impugned award the Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement without backwages. 2. The respondent worker involved in the present case is said to have employed as daily wage worker under the petitioners during 1982 to 09.02.1995. Thereafter he was discontinued from service abruptly 2 The worker thereafter raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter stood referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence which have been brought on record on either side vide impugned award has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the respondent worker is entitled for the benefit of reinstatement without 3. The impugned award dated 01.05.2010 was challenged by way of present writ petition which was filed by the petitioners on 13.12.2010 4. From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition itself it shows that the respondent worker was reinstated by the authorities as early as on 14.07.2010 and from 14.07.2010 onwards the worker has been continuously working under the petitioners. Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing the counsel for the respondent worker submits that pending the writ petition before this court the State Government itself has vide order dated 08.03.2019 regularized the services of the worker and since then he is working as a regular employee under the petitioners. 5. Given the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the respondent worker particularly taking note of the fact that he stood regularised in service pending the writ petition equity stands in favour of the worker who firstly was reinstated immediately by the petitioners w.e.f. 14.07.2010 and since then he has put in a decade of continuous service and meanwhile he also stands regularized under the petitioners. Moreover by efflux of time as the respondent worker 3 also has served the petitioners for quite some time and is at the fag end of his service career where only few years of service is left for his retirement on this count also it would not be justifiable at this juncture to interfere with the Award 6. Under the circumstances this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition holding that the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at this stage in the light of subsequent development that has transpired particularly in favour of the respondent worker. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court P. Sam Koshy