Priyanka Mohle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2025:CGHC:18903

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 867 of 2025

¶6

1 - Chandrakala Kaushik D/o Shri Mahadev Kaushik Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Singhanpuri, P.O. Gochhiya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Laxmin Sinha D/o Shri Ganesh Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Rajmahal Chowk, Samnapur Road, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Ku. Surekha Mohle D/o Shri Sadhram Mohle Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Dabrabhanth, Sheetlapara, P.O. And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Savitri Talakwar D/o Shri Ramesh Tilakwar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Raghghupara, P.O. Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Ku. Pushplata D/o Shri Jailal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhinbhauri, P.O. - Usarwahi, Police Station - Rengakhar, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Nandani Banjara D/o Shri Kanhaiya Banjara Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And P.O. Palansari, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶12

7 - Smt. Puniya Meravi W/o Shri Jaisingh Meravi Aged About 35 Years

¶13

2 / 5

¶14

R/o Village Putputa, P.O. - Kukdur, Police Station - Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶15

8 - Ku. Kekti Dhurve D/o Shri Guman Singh Dhurve Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Niwapur, P.O. - Usarwahi, Police Station - Rengakhar, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

versus

¶18

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - The Collector Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶20

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶21

--- Respondent(s)

¶22

with

¶23

WPS No. 877 of 2025

¶24

1 - Priyanka Mohle D/o Shri Manak Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Dabrabhath, P.O. Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶25

2 - Minakshi Patel D/o Shri Sanat Kumar Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Post - Neurgaonkala, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶26

3 - Sanjulata Varte D/o Shri Jeevan Lal Varte Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Prabhatola, P.O. Podi, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

Petitioner(s)

3 / 5

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶31

2 - The Collector Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶32

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶35

For Petitioners : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G. A. and Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

¶36

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶37

25/04/2025

¶38

Since identical issues involved in the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

¶39

By the present petitions, the petitioners, who are working on the post of Second A.N.M. on contract basis appointed vide order dated 02/03/2019 (Annexure P/3) which has been issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer under the District Mineral Foundation Trust, are questioning the orders dated 14/01/2025 & 02/08/2024 respectively by which the services of the petitioners discontinued and the period of contractual appointment was not extended.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are several contractual appointees who are still working as A.N.M,

¶41

4 / 5

¶42

however, the present petitioners are only deprived of the extension of the contractual appointment. He further submits that the petitioners’ association have submitted representation before the CMHO, Kabirdham on 19/09/2024 however, no steps has been taken with regard to the same. He further submits that the writ petitions may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach before the concerned Collector by filing a representation and the Collector may be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass necessary order.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners’ contractual appointment has been extended as per the contract service increment work evaluation 2024-25 with the approval of the Collector. The petitioners are not having indefeasible right to continue in the contractual posts, hence there is no illegality in the orders impugned .

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶45

From perusal of the impugned orders Annexure P/1, it appears that the period of contractual appointment, as far as only the present writ petitioners is concerned, has not been extended further whereas the other employees appointed alongwith the petitioners are still continued in service.

¶46

In view of the above and the submissions made by both the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach before the concerned Collector by filing

¶47

5 / 5

¶48

representation individually raising their grievance therein. In the event of filing of such representations, the Collector is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary speaking and reasoned orders within a further period of 40 days from the date of submission of the representation.

¶49

With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶52

$. Bhilwar

Priyanka Mohle v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Mohle 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Draupat Bai Sapaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunita Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Parikshit Charan Vs Indian Institute of Management Raipur

Aditya Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrakala Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Man Singh Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh