Rajeev Nayan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9360 of 2019 ====================================================== Rajeev Nayan, S/o-Panchu Jamadar, R/o Village-Bagula, P.s.-Mohanpur, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 4.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas, Sasaram 5.

The Director DRDA-Cum-Member Secretary, District Water and Swachhta Committee, Rohtas, Sasaram 6.

Senior Deputy Collector-Cum-Nodal Officer, Akodhigola, Rohtas (Sasaram).

7.

The Block Development Officer, Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas 8.

Sri Kundan Kumar S/o Ramchandra Prasad R/o Mohalla-Rajiv Nagar,Ward No.7,P.S. Patliputra,Dist.-Patna at present the Block Development Officer, Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas.

9.

The Program Officer, Manrega Block Akodhi Gola, District-Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Tripathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vivek Kumar, GP7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-09-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

The petitioner was working on a contract basis as Panchayat Technical Assistant for discharging works related to MGNREGA in the Akodhigola Block. His contractual services have been brought to an end by impugned order dated 28.01.2019. It is apparent from the order that the same has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.9360 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2022 2/3 passed after issuing a show cause to the petitioner and based on findings of his not accepting the charge of Block Coordinator. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations is false. In spite of his best efforts he could not assume charge because of non-cooperation. It is also submitted that he has been victimized because show case was issued to the Block Development Officer-cum-Block Swachhta Padadhikari, Akodhigola. The further submission is that the order has been passed at the District Level though his contractual engagement was by the Department.

State has filed a counter affidavit. They have specifically denied and disputed the allegations. Several instances of communication has been brought on record asking the petitioner to either assume charge or improve his work and in spite thereof it is said that the matter was enquired, and after due opportunity the petitioner's contractual engagement has been terminated.

Insofar as submission regarding the order being by incompetent authority, State has relied upon communication dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure-B series) which allows termination of such contractual engagement at the District level. The Court, having considered the rival submissions, is

Patna High Court CWJC No.9360 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2022 3/3 not inclined to go into the factual disputed issue as to how the petitioner was prevented from assuming charge, specifically in view of his own reply (Annexure-05) relevant extract of which reads as follows:- " हमे जहहा तक पतहा ह कक प्रत्यमेक बहठक में प्रखंड समन्वयक दहारहा लहाभुककों कहा प्रहाप्त आवमेदनकों कको उपलब्ध नहहीं करहा पहातमे थमे। इसस डर कमे कहारण मेरमे दहारहा स्वततः प्रभहार नहहीं कलयहा गयहा। "

Apart from that, the services of the petitioner was contractual and Annexure-B clearly enables the District Authorities to terminate such contractual engagement. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U