[2026:RJ-JP:107]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13220/2009 Ramgopal Aswal S/o Shri Sarwan Kumar Khatik, aged around 30 years, R/o Village Agar, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Alwar.

2. Zila Parishad through Chief Executive Officer, Alwar.

3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Thanagaji, District Alwar.

4. Gram Panchayat through Sarpanch Agar, Panchayat Samiti, Thanagaji, Alwar

5. Gram Sevak cum Member Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Agar, Tehsil Thanagji, Alwar.

6. Shyam Singh Rana S/o Shri Rameshwar Rana, aged around 27 years, R/o Village & Post Agar, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

06/01/2026

1. Feeling aggrieved vide order dated 10.09.2009 whereby, services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under the provision of Section 226 of Constitution of India.

2. Facts in brief are that vide order dated 10.06.2008, the petitioner was appointed on the Post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak (Rural Employment Assistant) on contract basis and was posted in Panchayat Samiti Thanagaji, District Alwar. The contract/agreement executed between the parties has also been placed on record as Annexure-2. It is submitted that the contract was for a period of one year from the date of its execution, however, before completion of period of one year, the same was extended for a further period till 2010 however, before completion of contractual period, vide order dated 10.09.2009, services of the petitioner were terminated by leveling allegations of dereliction of duties and causing grave irregularities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the agreement dated 13.06.2009 (Annexure-2), only in two contingencies, the contract between the petitioner and respondents could have been terminated. Firstly, as per Clause-6 in case of any misconduct on the part of the employee, if proven after an enquiry, the employer would be entitled to terminate to the services of the employee; or secondly, as per Clause-7 where, contract could have been terminated by serving a notice of one month or as by depositing/paying one month's remuneration as per the contract.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner prior to passing order dated 10.09.2009 and no enquiry whatsoever was concluded by the respondents prior to the aforesaid order. The petitioner's termination was against the terms and conditions of the contract as well as in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 10.09.2009.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 9758/2024 decided on

22.08.2024 in Swati Priyadarshini Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there were serious complaints against the petitioner therefore, in respect of complaints, an enquiry has been conducted after examining the contents of complaints as well as by taking measurement of the work allegedly conducted under the supervision of the petitioner and other relevant material in the enquiry report dated 09.10.2009, it was recommended for taking appropriate action against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the action has been taken against the petitioner in view of Clause 6 of the contract entered into between the parties and since, during enquiry, even opportunity was given to the petitioner therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

8. Heard and considered.

9. It is an undi