Dr. Sudama Ram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010334132021

2026:CGHC:31834

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7108 of 2021

¶7

Dr. Sudama Ram Chandrakar S/o Shri Hirday Ram Chandrakar Aged About 64 Years Child Specialist, C M H O Office- Durg, District- Durg R/o House No. 531/k, Ward No. 19, Itwari Bazar, Anda District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 491221

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

2. Commissioner Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, DistrictRaipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

3. Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Third Floor, Block-A, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s)

¶13

WITH

¶14

WPS No. 53 of 2022

¶15

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Manrakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 63 Years Medicine Specialist, District Hospital- Durg, District- Durg, R/o- Block-1, Plot-6, Priyadarshani Parisar (East), Suprla, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 490023

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,new Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

2. Commissioner, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan,new Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

3. Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Third Floor, Block-A,new Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

--- Respondent(s)

¶22

2

¶23

For Petitioners	: Mr. Shrijan Pandey, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate
For State	: Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L.

¶24

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

¶25

27.7.2026

¶26

1) In these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by Joint Director, Health Services dated 6.2.2021 whereby their respective representations seeking Pravar Shreni Vetanman and Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman were rejected.

¶27

2) Facts in brief are that petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Medical Officer) vide order dated 14.9.1983 and they joined the services on 19.9.1983 and 15.9.1983 respectively. Petitioners filed WPS No. 3775 of 2020 and WPS No. 3823 of 2020 claiming therein Pravar Shreni Vetanman and Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman. Those writ petitions were disposed vide orders dated 5.10.2020 and 14.10.2020 respectively wherein directions were issued to the respondents therein to decide the pending representations of petitioners within period of four months. In pursuance to aforestated orders, representations made by the petitioners have been rejected vide orders dated 6.2.2021.

¶28

3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Dr. Vivek Joshi, Dr. Budhram Pujari and Dr. Murli Mohan Murti, who are juniors to the petitioners have already been extended the benefit of Pravar

¶29

3

¶30

Shreni Vetanman and Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman in the year 2013 and petitioners are also entitled for similar benefit in light of circular dated 1.4.2013 but till date, such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners. He prays to allow these petitions.

¶31

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that according to Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, 25% of the Medical Officers were entitled for Pravar Shreni Vetanman after completion of six years of service and 15% of the Medical Officers were entitled for Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman after completion of four years of service in Pravar Shreni Vetanman. She further submits that due to inadvertence, the benefit of Pravar Shreni Vetanman and Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman was extended to all Medical Officers vide circular dated 1.4.2013 and Dr. Vivek Joshi, Dr. Budhram Pujari and Dr. Murli Mohan Murti, who are juniors to the petitioners were extended the benefit of higher pay scales. She also submits that the benefits were extended wrongly to Dr. Vivek Joshi, Dr. Budhram Pujari and Dr. Murli Mohan Murti in the year 2013 and same have been withdrawn and extended to them w.e.f. 8.6.2019 therefore these petitions being misconceived are liable to be dismissed.

¶32

5) Heard.

¶33

6) Petitioners have claimed benefit of Pravar Shreni Vetanman and Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman as per circular dated 1.4.2013

¶34

4

¶35

which provided for upgradation of 100% Medical Officers to Varishtha Shreni Vetanman after completion of six years in Kanishtha Shreni Vetanman ; upgradation of 100% Medical Officers to Pravar Shreni Vetanman after completion of six years of service in Varishtha Shreni Vetanman and upgradation of 25% Medical Officers to Varishtha Pravar Shreni Vetanman after completion of six years of service in Pravar Shreni Vetanman.

¶36

7) Petitioners have pleaded that juniors to the petitioner have been extended the benefit of upgraded pay-scales according to the circular dated 1.4.2013 in the year 2013 whereas in the impugned orders, it is categorically stated that afore-stated benefit granted to the other Medical Officers has been withdrawn and they have been granted the benefit of upgraded pay-scales w.e.f. 8.6.2019.

¶37

8) In view of the discussion made herein-above, in my opinion, respondent authority has rightly rejected the representations so moved by the petitioners as benefit extended to juniors to the petitioners in the year 2013 has been withdrawn and same was extended to them in the year 2019 only.

¶38

9) Consequently, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed .

¶39

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶40

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.28 14:31:56 +0530

Dr. Sudama Ram Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sudama Ram Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madanpur South Coal Company Limited Raipur Vs Smt. Dhansay

Madhya Pradesh Jesuits Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Smt. Bimla Bai

Anand Kumar Gupta Vs Vinod Chhabra

Shri Saptdev Automobiles Private Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Chhira Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation