Mustafa Ahmed Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010241262025

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6311/2025
MUSTAFA AHMED LASKAR
S/O- SAJ UDDIN LASKAR, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- BOALIPAR
PT-II, P.O. BOALIPAR BAZAR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM-788155.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE MISSION DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
ASSAM
SAIKIA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
G.S. ROAD
SRINAGAR PATH
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GHY-781005.
3:NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DY. SECY. HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOUSE NO. 16
JANA PATH
OPPOSITE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
KHANAPARA
GHY-22.

Page No.# 2/8
4:DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CUM
MEMBER SECRETARY
DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY
SRIBHUMI
HOSPITAL ROAD
SRIBHUMI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. A K HANNAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, SC, NHM

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
For the petitioner : Shri M.J. Quadir, Advocate.

For the respondents : Ms. A. Bora, SC, NHM.

Date on which judgment is : NA
Reserved.

Date of pronouncement of : 03.11.2026.
Judgment.

Whether the pronouncement : NA.
is of the operative part of the
judgment?

Whether the full judgment : Yes.
has been pronounced?

Page No.# 3/8
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
An order dated 27.07.2025 by which the services of the petition as a Block Data
Manager (Contractual) has been terminated is the subject matter of challenge in the
present petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Before going to the issues involved, it would be convenient, if the facts of the
case are recorded in brief.

3. The petitioner was appointed after the selection process as a Block Data
Manager on contractual basis under the National Rural Health Mission, Assam, on
25.05.2012. Such appointment was for a period of six months which was extended
from time to time.On 24.01.2019, the petitioner was released from his initial place of
posting and was posted in the Sorojini PHC, Hailakandi. In the meantime, the NHM
had issued a notification dated 07.09.2023, whereby the exit age of contractual
employees was fixed at 70 years, with a further stipulation that for employees crossing
the age of 65 years, there would be periodic evaluation.On 04.06.2025, an FIR was
lodged alleging that the petitioner had posted communal materials in his Facebook
account. On the basis of the same, on 05.06.2025, the petitioner was arrested, and he
was ultimately granted bail on 27.08.2025.In the meantime, on 27.07.2025, the
petitioner was terminated from service. It is on the same date, i.e., 27.07.2025, that
the charge sheet was submitted in the criminal case. It is the legality and validity of
the order of termination dated 27.07.2025 which is the subject matter of challenge, as
indicated above.

4. I have heard Shri M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
heard Ms. A. Bora, learned standing counsel, NHM.

5. Shri Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the

Page No.# 4/8
appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature, it was preceded by a duly
conducted selection process. He has also submitted that the initial appointment,
though was for 6 months, the same was extended from time to time, and for all
practical purposes, the petitioner was regarded as a permanent employee.He has
submitted that the aforesaid stand gets fortified by the communication dated
07.09.2023, whereby an exit age of contractual employees was also stipulated at 70
years.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of
termination is ex facie a stigmatic one. It is submitted that though Clause 9 of the
Terms of Contract has been taken recourse to, the order of termination is on the basis
of the petitioner being arrested in the criminal case on the charge of sharing anti-
national video in his personal Facebook account. He has submitted that in the criminal
case, an order has been passed on 27.08.2025 by the learned Special Judge, whereby
further proceedings have been stopped as no sanction, as required under the law, was
obtained and there is no progress now.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that irrespective of the
nature of the appointment, when the termination is on the basis of certain allegations
and there is a stigma attached, there is a necessity to give the petitioner a fair
opportunity to defend. He submits that principles of natural justice are ingrained in an
employment, and in case of any termination, such principles have to be mandatorily
followed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon various
decisions, including a decision passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of
State of Assam v. Partha Pratim Saikia [WA 256/2025 disposed of on 28.08.2025].
In the aforesaid case, the State had preferred an appeal against an order of the
learned Single Judge who had interfered with an order of termination of a contractual
employee, as no opportunity was granted to him and such termination was stigmatic

Page No.# 5/8
in nature. The learned Single Judge had, however, given liberty to the employer to
take steps in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the contractual
employee. The Hon'ble Division Bench had dismissed the appeal and had endorsed the
views of the learned Single Judge. For ready reference, the relevant observations are
extracted herein below:

“ 10. After having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we are of the
considered view that even in contractual employment, if the order of
termination is stigmatic, it has to be preceded by a show-cause notice, or
else it would be bad in the eyes of law. If the service of a contractual
employee is terminated on account of any misconduct and that also without
holding any regular enquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him,
the show-cause notice to him is a must.
…
12. Even otherwise, we find that by the judgment impugned in the present
appeal, the learned Single Judge, though has set aside the order of
termination and has directed for reinstatement of the respondent in service
within 3(three) weeks from the date of passing of the order, but he has made
it only subject to the decision of the State to proceed against the respondent
afresh after complying with due process of law, including adherence to the
principle of natural justice; in which event it would be open for the State to
take further consequential action in the matter, as may be deemed fit and
proper under the law. ”

8. The learned counsel has accordingly submitted that in terms of views expressed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench as well as in the other cases referred, interference of
this Court would be called for with the impugned order.

9. Per contra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, NHM has submitted that the
appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature and was limited by time which
was extended from time to time. She has submitted that the termination is as per
Clause 9 of the Terms of Contract, which is specifically mentioned in the impugned
order. She has submitted that such term being an agreed one, the petitioner would
not have the locus to challenge the order of termination.

Page No.# 6/8

10. In his reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a clause in
the agreement for permitting termination cannot be read in isolation and has to be
read in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In this regard, he has relied
upon the case of Dharmeshwar Baishya v. State of Assam& Ors. , reported in 2004
(2) GLT 253 . In the said case, this Court had dealt with a similar circumstance and
had made a detailed discussion by referring to the various case laws, including the
case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For ready reference, the relevant observations are
extracted herein below:

“ (14) The order of termination of the services of the petitioner on the face of
it is innocuous, However, from the revealation made in the affidavit in
opposition there is no manner of doubt that the services of the petitioner was
dispensed with on the ground of alleged misconduct. Such misconduct was
attributed to the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry conducted behind his
back. The said enquiry, and the report thereof were the foundation for
termination of services of the petitioner. Clause (12) of the Contract cannot
give the respondents unbriddled power. The application of principle of natural
justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the
Authority from acting arbitrarily effecting the rights of the concerned person.
No decision must be taken which will-affect the right of any person without
his/her first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of
putting his/her case involving civil consequences and must be made as per
rules of natural justice. ”

11. The rival submissions advanced at the Bar have been duly considered and the
materials placed before this Court,including the case laws, have been carefully
perused.

12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2025 would show that the basis of
the termination is the allegation against the petitioner of being involved in sharing an
anti-national video from his personal Facebook account in which, he was also arrested
in the connected criminal case. There is a clear stipulation that the aforesaid action of

Page No.# 7/8
the petitioner is “in violation of the ethical standards and service norms under the
National Health Mission, Assam and such misconduct is unacceptable and detrimental
to the integrity and reputation of the organization”. It clearly appears that the order of
termination is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the
employer to give the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself which, admittedly,
has not been done. As narrated above, the termination order was issued on
27.07.2025 when the petitioner was still in custody, and he was released on bail only
on 27.08.2025.

13. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Partha Pratim Saikia
(supra) has endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, who had interfered in a
similar matter of termination of service of a contractual employee which was stigmatic
in nature. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also endorsed the observations whereby
liberty was granted to the employer to proceed against the incumbent afresh by
complying with the due process of law.

14. By following the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
has made out a case for interference. The impugned order dated 27.07.2025
accordingly stands interfered with only on the ground that the petitioner has not been
afforded a reasonable and fair opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the
petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service expeditiously and preferably within a
period of 1 month from today. Such reinstatement would, however, be subject to the
condition that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in
the manner prescribed by law.

Page No.# 8/8
15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.

16. No order as to costs.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant