Allowed¶24

Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 May 2026REVP/134/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

REVP No. 134 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, decided 12/05/2026. Review petition by Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal, Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Contract), North Bastar Kanker, seeking recall of the order dated 05.01.2026 in WPS No. 14101 of 2025, which was disposed of in reliance on a circular dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P/10) later held forged by the State (circular dated 21.06.2010; clarified vide circular dated 02.06.2010, Annexure P/2). Order recalled; writ petition restored to its original number.

What did the court decide?

Review allowed: order dated 05.01.2026 passed in WPS No. 14101 of 2025 recalled and the writ petition restored to its original number. ¶24

Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:22409

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

REVP No. 134 of 2026

¶6

1 - Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Samal Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Contract), Primary Health Ayush Kendra Tarhul Village And Post Tarhul, Tahsil- Durgukondal District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Director Ayush, Chhattisgarh Government, Directorate, Ayush Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Campus, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - District Ayush Officer North Bastar Kanker District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

12/05/2026

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertent mistake along with the writ petition circular dated 28.05.2010 was

¶18

¶19

filed to submit that State government has already issued a circular for regularisation of service of the contract employees. Considering the submission made and the documents enclosed, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the said circular however, petitioner subsequently revealed that the circular which was filed as Annexure P/10 was held to be a forged circular by the State government in its circular dated 21.06.2010 and therefore the order passed disposing the writ petition be reviewed and recalled. She also submits that the petitioners have not submitted representation pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petitions. It is also the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the circular which is filed alongwith writ petition is dated 28.05.2010 and it has come to the knowledge of the State Government that the said circular is forged and fabricated one and accordingly it has been clarified vide circular dated 02.06.2010. As there is no ill intention on the part of the petitioners, the order passed in the writ petition may be recalled.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to the observation made by this Court he has verified about the filing of representation pursuant to the order passed in writ petition and according to his instructions petitioners have not submitted representation. Further decision has been taken to take action against the concerned petitioners.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

¶23

The petitioners are working as Ayurved Medical Officer (Contract). From the documents enclosed along with this review application, in particular, Annexure P/2 which is the circular issued by the State government dated 02.06.2010, it is appearing that the forged circular came to the knowledge of the State government within few days clarificatory circular has been issued informing the respective authorities. As submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioners were not aware about the veracity of the circular dated 28.05.2010 filed alongwith writ petition. From the pleadings made in the review application and submission of counsel for the petitioner and considering the submission of counsel for the petitioner, as also considering that the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent authority to take decision considering circular dated 28.05.2010, which could not be complied with, in the opinion of this Court the petitioners have made out the case for review of the order subject matter of the review petition.

¶24

Accordingly, the order dated 05.01.2026 passed in WPS No. 14101 of 2025 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶25

SD/-

¶26

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶27

Madhurima

Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Praveen Kumar Samal 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

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs Guru Ghasidas Central University and Ors.

Yagyadutt Sharma Vs Shri Sanjay Shukla

Tamashkar Lal Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Sheikh Sadik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajju Kumar Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Krishna Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh