1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

                  (i) For issuance of appropriate writ/(s), for quashing of the order dated 10.1.2022 passed in Manrega Appeal No.88/2021 by respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 against the order memo No.356 dated 21.2.2013 passed by respondent No.3 has been dismissed at admission stage after rejecting the condonation application filed by the petitioner u/s 5 of limitation Act.

                  (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) for quashing of the order dated 21.2.2013 passed by respondent no.3, whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. 1.3.2013 without following the principle of natural justice on wrong presumptions.

                  (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) upon the respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuation of service right from date of termination with all consequential benefits.

                  (iv) For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent no.3 to delete the stigma casted upon the petitioner in the order dated 21.2.2013 by giving him full opportunity of hearing.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The petitioner was a contractual employee under MGNREGA Scheme. His initial appointment on August, 2007 was for one year but later it was extended from time to time till his contract was terminated vide order as contained in Memo No.356 dated 21.02.2013.

4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6886 of 2013, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 15.10.2019, with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. Though the said writ petition was disposed of on 15.10.2019, yet the petitioner filed the Departmental Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner on 06th December, 2019, after a much delay.

5. Be it noted that the period of limitation is one month for filing a Departmental Appeal under MGNREGA Scheme before the Divisional Commissioner.

6. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal, which resulted in filing of the instant writ petition.

7. From the records, I find that the contract of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and the petitioner was not performing well. Further, there is an allegation of defalcation while constructing the “Harina Pond”.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the punitive order is without following the principle of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioner.

9. From the arguments advanced by the parties and also from the arguments of the respondents’ counsel and the counter affidavit, it is clear that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

10. There is no doubt that when a service contract is being terminated in respect of ad-hoc or temporary or contractual employee, which attracts stigma, it is necessary to issue notice. Principles of natural justice must be followed. In this case, admittedly notice has not been issued to the petitioner, thus the impugned order is bad.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282, at para-19, has held as follows:-

                  “19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.”

12. Now, the question which falls for consideration is what relief can be granted to the petitioner.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner was a contractual employee and initial contract was for one year, which got lapsed. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was extended on year-to-year basis. That period has also lapsed now. His services were terminated in March, 2013. We are now in the month of January, 2026. It is nearly thirteen years. Thus, it would not be proper to direct the respondents to extend the service contract of the petitioner. A compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), is awarded to him. The said amount should be paid by the respondent within two months.

14. Considering the peculiar facts of this case and the period of 13 years which is lapsed, the order of removal of the petitioner will not come in his way if in near future, the petitioner applies for any work under the respondents or under the State.

15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.