Dr. Sudha Samuel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9421

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2785 of 2017

¶6

1 - Dr. Sudha Samuel D/o Late Shri S. Prakash, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Dr. Ester Snehlata Kujur, D/o Late Shri Rabrist Kumar Kujur Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital Ambikapur, District Ambikapur, (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Dr. B. P. Sonkar, S/o Late Shri Jeevanlal Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, Police Hospital, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶9

4 - Dr. Ramlal Thakur, S/o Bhagat Ram, Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital Mungeli, District Mungeli, (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Dr. Divya Kiran Toppo, D/o Shri Anand Prakash Toppo Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital, Raigarh, District Raigarh, (C.G.)

¶11

6 - Dr. Vijay Kumar Ekka, S/o Late Shri Binku Ekka Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital Mandhar, District Raipur, (C.G.)

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.)

¶15

3 - Director, Directorate Health Services, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate:2025.02.2419:24:42 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For the State/Respondents : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

24/02/2025

¶23

By virtue of this petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs :- “10.1 That the Hon’ble court may please to quash the impugned order dated 04/11/2016 so far it deprives the petitioners from their pension, Arrears and other benefits.

¶24

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondents to regularize and grant the benefits of pension, arrears of pay in time scale to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment along with interest.

¶25

10.3 That this Hon’ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.”

¶26

It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the petitioners, who are Doctors, posted at different Health Centers at Chhattisgarh, have been appointed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh by issuing advertisement and after getting the interview on the post of Assistant Sergon/Medical Officers in District Bastar and Surguja in the year 1992 on Ad hoc basis. It is contended further that these petitioners are getting regular increments and have completed the period of probation and, their services have been regularized by the concerned respondent-authorities, vide order dated 04/11/2016 (Annexure-P/1), but they have been deprived of the benefit of pension and arrears of pay from the date of their initial appointments, therefore, they have been constrained to file the instant petition, while claiming the aforesaid reliefs.

¶27

3

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved herein has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23/01/2024 in the matter of ‘Dr. Onkar Lal Burman and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others’ passed in WPS No. 1592 of 2017 and other connected matters, therefore, the petitioners may be granted the similar reliefs.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has not disputed the fact that the similar issue has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said matter.

¶30

From perusal of the order passed in the said matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while examining the order impugned dated 04/11/2016 (AnnexureP/1) has observed at paragraphs No. 14 and 15, which are relevant for the purpose read as under :-

¶31

“14. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the legal propositions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court and other High Courts, the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure-P/1), so far as condition Nos. 1 and 2 thereof are concerned, is hereby set aside, however the other part of the order is affirmed. The petitioners are also entitled for pensionary benefits and their past services be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. The respondent authorities are directed to calculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and the arrears be given to them for the said period. This exercise be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶32

All the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.”

¶33

Since, the issue involved herein has already been decided in the above referred matter, the petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are entitled to get the same benefits as granted by this Court in the said matter.

¶34

4

¶35

Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits and their past services be counted for grant of pensionary benefits and the respondentauthorities are directed to calculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments and the arrears accrued be given to them for the said purpose. The said exercise be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶36

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶37

No order as to cost(s).

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶40

Kamde

Dr. Sudha Samuel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sudha Samuel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kesari Vs Ramesh Vishwakarma

Surjeet Singh Khanuja Vs Bahadur Singh

Anup Kumar Pathak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Tula Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh