Disposed

Dr. Leenima Sonkala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2023WPS/257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition challenging termination of services. The court directed that a terminated contractual employee's past record must not be considered if she applies for fresh appointment, and confirmed no departmental enquiry was held.

What did the court decide?

Termination order and past record to be ignored if petitioner applies for fresh appointment with respondents.

Dr. Leenima Sonkala Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 257 of 2018

¶5

Dr. Leenima Sonkala, D/o Shri C. L. Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Opposite To Gavari Nursing Home New Mandi Road Fafadih Road Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Director, National Health Mission Chhattisgarh LIC Building, 4^th Floor, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Chief Medical & Health Officer, Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer Gariyaband District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.
For State	:	Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate.
For Res. 2/Mission	:	Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

11.04.2023

¶16

The petitioner, who was appointed as Ayush Medical Officer (F) (BHMS) at Block-Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, has filed this petition challenging order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was some dispute between the petitioner and team members. He would further submit that contractual period of the petitioner was extended year by year and on 31.05.2017 (Annexure P/5), a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging certain allegation against him and also indicating why services of the petitioner may not be terminated. The petitioner submitted her

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

reply on 08.08.2017 (Annexure P/8) and thereafter again submitted reply on 16.08.2017 (Annexure P/9), but without considering reply, respondent No. 2 has terminated services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P/10), which has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition. He would further submit that services of the petitioner has been terminated without conducting any enquiry which is in violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, termination order dated 21.09.2017 be quashed.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to her to improve her performance but neither she has replied the same, nor improved her performance, therefore, her services has been discontinued. He would further submit that the termination order has been passed following principle of natural justice and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶22

This Court vide order dated 15.09.2022 directed learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to produce record of departmental enquiry, if any, conducted against the petitioner and in pursuance of the same, counsel for respondent No. 2 has shown memo issued to the petitioner advising her to improve her performance, but no departmental enquiry has been initiated against her.

¶23

Considering the fact that the contractual period of the petitioner, which was for one year, has already been expired, it is directed that if the petitioner applies for afresh appointment with respondent No. 2, the past record which has been submitted by respondent No. 2 before this Court as well as order of termination dated 21.09.2017 shall not be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment afresh.

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

It is made clear that termination order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P/10) shall also not be taken into consideration, if the petitioner applied for contractual appointment or regular appointment with respondents.

¶26

With these observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶29

Arun

Dr. Leenima Sonkala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Leenima Sonkala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Hemant Kumar Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. S. Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aditya Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nasrat Ullah Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramnaresh Dwivedi Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Pradeep Kumar Jagat Vs State Of Chhattisgarh