Shailedra Mehta vs Department Of Tribal Affairs

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on
18-03-2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


1 W.P. No. 27011/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 27011 of 2024

SHAILEDRA MEHTA
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
______________________________________________________
Appearance:

Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Dristi Rawal - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.

Reserved on : 13/03/2026
Post on : 18/03/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide action

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


2 W.P. No. 27011/2024
of the respondents in abruptly discontinuing his contractual
appointment w.e.f. 01.08.2024 by removing his name from the
attendance register, without issuing any specific formal order of
termination. A challenge is also laid to the non-payment of regular
monthly salary for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.07.2024,
alongside arbitrary short payment of salary for the period from
01.12.2023 to 31.03.2024.
Facts of the Case
2. The undisputed facts emerging from the record are that the
respondent No.2 - M.P. Adivasi Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, is a State
Government Undertaking amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this
Court. Pursuant to a selection process, the petitioner was appointed
to the post of Lower Division Clerk (Assistant Grade-III) on a
contractual basis vide order dated 29.06.1996, and a service
contract was executed on 02.07.1996. Over the years, the
contractual appointment was continuously extended based on
satisfactory performance, with the last formal extension order
issued on 07.11.2020, extending the period up to 31.03.2021.
3. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, formal
exercises for the extension of contractual periods were stalled.
However, the State Government issued Circulars dated 05.06.2018

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


3 W.P. No. 27011/2024
and 22.07.2023. The latter Circular dispensed with the requirement
of annual renewal of contractual employment, placing such
appointments in an auto-renewal mode to grant security of tenure
and remove administrative arbitrariness. The petitioner, presently
aged 60 years, continued to discharge his duties at the Mandsaur
Branch of the respondent-Corporation well beyond 31.03.2024.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite rendering
continuous service, he was paid only 15 days' salary for the period
between 01.12.2023 and 31.03.2024, and no salary was paid from
01.04.2024 to 31.07.2024. When the petitioner demanded his
rightful wages, his name was abruptly struck from the attendance
register on 01.08.2024 by respondent No.3. A detailed
representation submitted by the petitioner on 08.08.2024 yielded no
response, compelling him to file the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has rendered unblemished service for over 28 years since 1996. It is
contended that in light of the State Government's Circulars dated
05.06.2018 and 22.07.2023, the petitioner's contractual employment
was in an auto-renewal mode. Therefore, the abrupt discontinuation
of his services by merely striking his name off the attendance

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


4 W.P. No. 27011/2024
register is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further urged that the petitioner has never been served
with any adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or any
notice pointing out deficiencies in his service. To fortify his
submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of M.P.
& Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139; 2024 INSC 620 ], wherein
it has been held that a contractual employee has a right to be
retained in service if the discontinuation is attributed to malice,
unsatisfactory performance, or stigma without following the bare
minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice and fair
play. The petitioner accordingly prays for reinstatement with
consequential monetary benefits and arrears of salary along with
12% interest.
Contentions of the Respondents
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents/State opposes the petition, submitting that
the petitioner's services were continued until 22.07.2023. It is
contended that in the year 2022, the State Government introduced
specific financial assistance schemes, including the Bhagwan Birsa

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


5 W.P. No. 27011/2024
Munda Swarojgar Yojana, for which the petitioner was assigned
targets to facilitate bank loans for villagers.
8. The respondents assert that the petitioner was negligent in
performing his duties and failed to show progress under the said
schemes within his jurisdiction. It is stated that the District
Organizer, Tribal Affairs, continuously informed higher authorities
vide note sheets dated 28.11.2023 and 08.02.2024 regarding the
petitioner's negligence and complaints received from villagers. The
respondents contend that due to this repeated negligence, which was
recorded in his service record, the petitioner's contractual
appointment was not renewed, and consequently, his name did not
find place in the renewal list published on 12.07.2024. The
respondents pray for the dismissal of the petition.
Analysis and Conclusion
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, the core issue that arises for the consideration of
this Court is whether the abrupt discontinuation of the petitioner’s
contractual service and the withholding of his salary are sustainable
in the eyes of the law.
10. Upon a careful examination of the reply and the documents
annexed by the respondents, this Court finds that there is no

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


6 W.P. No. 27011/2024
documentary or substantive evidence which clearly establishes the
alleged dissatisfaction with the petitioner's work. The respondents
have merely used the word "dissatisfaction" and "negligence"
without bringing any concrete evidence on record. Merely alleging
unsatisfactory performance on note sheets, without communicating
the same to the employee or affording him an opportunity to
improve or respond, does not meet the threshold of fairness
required by a State instrumentality.
11. Furthermore, the action of the respondents stands in direct
contravention of the State Government's own Circulars dated
05.06.2018 and 22.07.2023, which mandate an auto-renewal
mechanism for contractual employees specifically to curb such
arbitrary administrative actions.
12. The legal position in this regard is well-settled. As rightly
relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swati
Priyadarshini (supra) has categorically recognized the right of a
contractual employee to be retained in service when discontinuation
is clouded by allegations of unsatisfactory working performance or
stigma, and the employer completely fails to follow the bare
minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice. In the
present case, dispensing with the services of an employee who has
put in 28 years of unblemished service, merely on the basis of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


7 W.P. No. 27011/2024
unverified complaints and without any notice or inquiry, constitutes
a textbook example of arbitrary state action.
13. In addition to the illegal termination, the action of the
respondents in extracting work from the petitioner between
01.12.2023 and 31.07.2024 without payment of his complete and
rightful monthly salary amounts to begar and offends the
constitutional guarantees under Article 23 of the Constitution of
India. An employee cannot be deprived of remuneration for the
services actually rendered.
14. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned action of
the respondents in discontinuing the petitioner's services is held to
be illegal, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed with the following directions:
(a) The impugned action of the respondents dated
01.08.2024, discontinuing/removing the petitioner from
service, is hereby quashed and set-aside.
(b) The respondents are directed by a writ of
mandamus to forthwith re-instate the petitioner in
service on the post of Assistant Grade-III and to
continue his employment in accordance with the
Circular dated 22.07.2023.
(c) The petitioner shall be entitled to 50% back
wages from 01.08.2024 till the date of actual
reinstatement.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7483


8 W.P. No. 27011/2024
(d) The respondents are further directed to calculate
and release the balance arrears of salary payable to the
petitioner for the period from 01.12.2023 to 31.03.2024
(after adjusting the 15 days' salary already paid), along
with the full regular salary and allowances for the period
during which he actually worked, i.e., from 01.04.2024
to 31.07.2024.
(e) The aforesaid exercise, including reinstatement and
payment of all monetary benefits and arrears, shall be
completed within a period of 60 days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of
accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*PS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 18-03-2026
17:05:46