ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by Petitioner aggrieved by the Order dated 26.9.2020 (Annexure P-1)

2. Vide impugned Order, the services of Petitioner have been terminated by Respondent No.4.

3. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner for the first time was appointed on contractual basis as Technical Assistant (Janpad Level) vide Order dated 9.5.2018. He was posted at Janpad Panchayat, Narayanpur. The engagement of Petitioner was under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (Gramin). The initial appointment of Petitioner was for a period till 28.2.2019. Services of Petitioner were subsequently further continued and a fresh order of renewal of contract was made on 1.4.2020 (Annexure P-4) and the engagement of Petitioner was renewed for a period between 1.3.2020 to 28.2.2021. Half way through the present extended tenure, the services of Petitioner were abruptly discontinued vide Order dated 26.9.2020 (Annexure P-1), which has led to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

4. Primary contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner in the instant case is that the termination of Petitioner is without conducting any enquiry nor was he given a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence. Further contention is that since in the order of appointment the Respondents had mentioned that the persons engaged in the contractual employment would be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, therefore, once when the aforementioned Rules of 1965 were made applicable upon the Petitioner, the Respondents ought to have conducted a departmental enquiry before passing of the order of termination.

5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further contended that Annexure P-1 is an Order which would reflect that the services of Petitioner have been terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance with an act of negligence, thus, the order would be a stigmatic order and therefore it was required on the part of Respondents to have conducted an enquiry before terminating the services of Petitioner. He also tried to canvass that since the Respondents were predetermined in terminating the services of Petitioner, they in order to project that the Petitioner was given ample opportunity to improve upon, issued various show cause notices to Petitioner at regular interval.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State on the other hand opposing the petition submits that plain reading of the impugned order of termination would reveal that the services of Petitioner were totally unsatisfactory. Numerous show cause notices were issued to him expecting improvement in the discharge of his duties. That, since there was no improvement found and he was repeatedly committing the same act of negligence, the Authorities were left with no other option but to terminate the contract that was executed between the Petitioner.

7. Further contention of learned Panel Lawyer is that since the engagement of Petitioner primarily being that of a contractual employee, he does not have an indefeasible right created in his favour for continuity of a contractual engagement in spite of the services being unsatisfactory. Lastly, it was contended by learned Panel Lawyer that in any case the last contractual period for which the Petitioner was appointed also has got expired on 28.2.2021 and as such there is no further scope of any relief that can be granted to Petitioner.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth by learned Counsels appearing for the parties, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case are that the Petitioner substantially was a contractual employee. The period of Petitioner's initial service was that of the year 2018. Though the contract of Petitioner initially was up till 28.2.20219, he got continued for the subsequent years also and the last contract which was executed in his favour was with effect from 1.3.2020 to 28.2.2021. The last extended contractual period having got expired on 28.2