Smt. Sonamati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010171962021

2026:CGHC:30364

NAFR

NIRMALA RAO

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 3726 of 2021

¶8

1 - Smt. Sonamati W/o Shri Kannilal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Beldagi, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Executive Director, State Health Resource Centre, State Health Training Centre Building, Kalibadi, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Chief Municipal Officer And Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Block Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner/s	: Ms. Jigyasa Singh, Advocate holding the
	brief of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	: Shri Ajay Kumrani, P.L.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

2

¶19

17.07.2026

¶20

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

“1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P/5).

¶22

2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Mitanin in the year 2003. It is argued that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed in the circular governing the recruitment and removal of Mitanins issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, Health & Family Welfare Department, Raipur dated 24.9.2011. It is also argued that no report was submitted by the Committee of five-member and no decision with regard to removal of the petitioner was taken by a majority of the Committee. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

¶24

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He would contend that a show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, enquiry was conducted but he would fairly submit that the decision was not taken by the five-member Committee to remove the petitioner, according to scheme.

¶25

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶26

3

¶27

1. The procedure with regard to removal of Mitanin is described in Circular dated 24.9.2011 and same is reproduced herein below:

¶28

" — म�त ि �न ा ��प ि ्र श�क ि कक�पर ्ष �वत ि ा� यद ि �खणडच ् ि �क ि �तस ् ा �अध ि ��र�अथव ी � ा ज ि �ल�स ा ा मनव ् ा य�� आ ं � लनअन ा � स ा �र ी क ि �स ा �ध ि मत�क ा ि ननपच ्र ि !क��य ्ष # स ा� त$ष�न�नह ा ीं ' ह ीं( त$ उस ा ा प ् र रव ी �� ा � ��य+ �, क ि वस ा ् त ा. त ा स ा म�क ्ष �ज ि �ल�स ा ा मनव ् य� ा , द ्वा �र�इनद ी ि �!�क ि न� 1 !2 म 3 �4 गईअप े� क ्षि कत ्ष ा ��य+ �, स ा9 �� म�च ि स��य ा # य$�न� म�च ि स�प ा ्र क ि तव ा � ा नव ा �:र�प ी ्र क ि तव ा � ा न� � आ ं ��र ी पर े ी �, ��वग�।इस ा� ा सम�क ा ्ष �� आ ं ��र ी पर े ी प ्र च ि !क��$ ्ष अप े न � ��य # म 3 स ा � �र ी ल�न ा � हत ीं� ा� ए� 'म�ह ीं ��स ा मयद ि �य� ��स�त ा �ह ा ।ए�म�ह ीं( ीं प े श�त ्चा ा> प ्र च ि !क�� ्ष � ��य # �, प े� न? स ा न!��र # ी ज ि �ल� ा स ा मनव ् ा य�पच ्र ि !क��$ ्ष ��य # स ा� पथ��र े. न ी � अथव��र ा �र ी खन ी � �, अन! � � स ा � क ि वस ा त ् ा. त ा ब�रणर ी �क ी ि डत ा खणडच ् ि �क ि �तस ् ा �अध ि ��र��, ी अध ् यक ्ष त�म ा 3 गक ि वत ा ा प े � � स ा �सय2 �, स ् ा ध ि मक ि त ा �$ पक ्र� ि षत ा �र ी3 ग। �

¶29

ध ि मत�क ा ि ननपच ्र ि !क ्ष �द ्वा �र�क ी ि �स ा �प ्र ��र ी �, गभ � �र ी ी अक ि नयध ि मतत ा �अथव ा � ा ��यक # ्र म� � उ�‌द > ्दे� श ् य2 व ा क ि वप ा र े �त ी ा आ ं �रण ी /��य # क ि �य � ��न � प े र ी भ�ज ी ि �ल�स ा ा मनव ् ा य‌� स ा� ब � ध ि �त ा प ्र �रण�, �� ी �र ी प ्र क ि तव ा � ा नउप े र$क ी त ् ा सध ा ि मक ि त ा �$ प ्र सत ् ा� त ा �र ी3 ग � व ा इस ा �, प ्र क ि त ा ज ि �ल�न$डल ा ा अध ि ��र�व ी ा र�ज ी यस ् ् व�स ा ्थ् यस ा� स ा ��न� � नद ् ्र �$ उप े लब ा ्ध �र�य ी 3 ग। � स ा ध ि मक ि त ा उप े र$क ी त ् �न ा स � ा �र ी प ्र �पत ् ा स ा म�क ्ष � / �� प ्र क ि तव ा � ा न� � आ ं ��र ी प े र ी स ा� ब � ध ि �त ा प ्र च ि !क��$ ्ष ��य # स ा� प े. थ��रन ी � � � स ा� ब म 3 क ि नण # यल ा� ग�।क ि नण # य�रन ी � हत ीं� ा� स ा ध ि मक ि त ा � � नय ् नत 9 मत ा �नस ा ा �स ् यस ा हमत ीं ा ह ीं $न � ��क ि हए। ीं

¶30

, र�ज ी यस ् ् व�स ा ्थ् यसस ा� ा ��न� � नद ् ्र अथव�स ा ा � �लन�ल ा य ा सव ् �स ा ्थ् यस ा� व�ए ा � द ्वा �र� ी आ ं व ा शय�त ् �न ा स � ा �र ी प ्र �रण2 ी �, र�ज ी यस ् ् तर ा ी स ा� �� र ी व��र ा ी स ा� ब � ध ि �त ा प ्र च ि !क��$ ्ष ��य # स ा� पथ��र े. न ी � � � स ा� ब म 3 �यनसध ा ि मक ि त ा �$ अन � !रण�, ��स ी ा �त�ह ा ।इस ीं( ा प ्र ��र ी र�ज ी यस ् त ् ा र ी स ा� �, गईअन! � � स ा �अनस � ा �र ी स ा� ब � ध ि �त ा स ा ध ि मक ि त ा द ्वा �र�क ी ि नण # यच ि लय� ा ��न�ह ीं $ग�एव ा� म � खयच ् ि �क ि �तस ् ा �एव ा� सव ् �स ा ्थ् यअध ि ��र�द ी ्वा �र�इस ी ा �, क ि नगर�न��, ी ��न�ह ीं $ग�। "

¶31

1. From perusal of the above-quoted provision, it is quite vivid that if the work of a Mitanin is found to be unsatisfactory, a report is required to be submitted by a five-member Committee presided over by the Block Medical and Health Officer. After submission of the report, a separate decision is required to be taken and there must be the concurrence of at least three out of five members with regard to the removal.

¶32

4

¶33

1. In the present case, though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the orders of removal dated 19.8.2019 & 21.8.2019 were issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer and the Executive Director. However, there is no concurrence of the Five-Member Committee. Therefore, the said orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, being contrary to the circular dated 24.9.2011. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

¶34

1. With regard to the arrears of salary, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the Competent Authority explaining she was not gainfully employed anywhere during these years. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24.9.2011, if so advised.

¶35

1. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Nimmi

Smt. Sonamati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonamati 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivani Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Krishna Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhas Verma Vs Jawahar

Ku. Rukmani Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe Vs State of Chhattisgarh