DEEPAK SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

(2.) The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dtd. 17/3/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 148 of 2023 (Deepak Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Court with the following prayer:-

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on contractual basis as Senior Programme Coordinator (Admin & Finance) under the State Health Resource Centre (SHRC), Raipur, and continuously discharged his duties from 2012 onwards with satisfactory performance, due to which his contractual engagement was periodically renewed. Initially, vide agreement dtd. 1/4/2015, his contract was extended up to 31/3/2016, however, subsequently, under alleged coercion and assurance of future continuation, he was compelled to execute another agreement curtailing the tenure up to 31/7/2015. Thereafter, even before expiry of the curtailed period, the respondents discontinued the appellant from service and appointed the private respondent in his place vide order dtd. 27/7/2015. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an application under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Raipur, which was dismissed on 14/7/2023 holding that the respondent institution does not fall within the ambit of "industry". The appellant thereafter filed W.P.(L) No. 148 of 2023, which also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 17/3/2026, wherein the learned Single Judge held that the appellant, being a contractual employee, was not entitled to continuation beyond the contractual period and that the case was covered under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and contending that the curtailment of his contractual tenure and premature discontinuance were arbitrary, mala fide and illegal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.