Purshottam Yadav (Peon) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:26597

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6730 of 2024

¶6

SHOAIB Digitallysigned bySHOAIBANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.06.3017:24:23+0530

¶7

1 - Omkar Prasad Pandey S/o Chedilal Pandey Aged About 54 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii, Posted At District Hospital Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Jitendra Singh Thakur S/o Gulabngh Aged About 49 Years Occupation Primary Health Assistant Grade Iii, Posted At Khaprikala Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Parmeshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Janakram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii District Hospital Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Director Directorate Health Services Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2

¶15

3 - The Chief Medical And Healt Officer District Hospital Mungeli District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

WPS No. 7223 of 2024

¶18

1 - Purshottam Yadav (Peon) S/o Late Shri Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Shanti Chowk Ward No. 05, Lormi P.S. And Tahsil Lormi District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶19

2 - Ramlochan Sahu (Ward Boy) S/o Late Shri Parmeshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village And Post Padampur P.S. Jarhagaon Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶20

3 - Raju Rajak (Dhobi) S/o Late Shri Ram Khilavan Rajak Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post Padampur P.S. Jarhagaon Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶21

4 - Smt. Neeta Sahu (Ward Aaya) W/o Shri Durgesh Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post - Karhi P.S. City Kotwali Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶22

5 - Stephen George S/o Shri Samuel George Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post - Jagtakapa P.S. And Tahsil Patharia District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶23

--- Petitioner(s)

¶24

3

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya P.S. And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶27

2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Office Of Cmho Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶28

3 - The Block Medical Officer (Bmo) Community Health Centre Lormi District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶29

4 - The Block Medical Officer (Bmo) Community Health Centre Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶30

5 - The Block Medical Officer (Bmo) Community Health Centre Patharia District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶31

--- Respondent(s)

¶32

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶33

For the petitioner in	WPS Shri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate
No. 6730/2024	appears on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi,Advocate
For petitioner in WPS	No. : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate
7223/2024
For Respondents/State	: Shri Shahil Singh,Panel Lawyer

¶34

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

4

30.06.2026

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.

¶39

In the present writ petition, the petitioner presently posted as Assistant Grade-III are questioning the order dated 04.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3/ The Chief Medical and Health Officer, by which, the promotion order dated 13.09.2024, by which, the petitioners have been promoted from the post of Class-IV to the post of Assistant Grade III have been cancelled.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order of promotion dated 13.09.2024 has been granted to the petitioner after the recommendation of the DPC held on 10.09.2024 and the petitioners joined to the promotion post of Assistant Grade-IIi and worked till today. The impugned order of cancelling the promotion has been issued by the respondent No. 3 in clear violation of principles of natural justice as before issuance of order of cancellation of promotion, no opportunity of hearing and no notice has been

¶41

5

¶42

issued to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioners have been deprived to explain the reason for which the order of promotion has been cancelled.

¶43

Learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that after receipt of the complaint, an enquiry committee was constituted by order dated 24.09.2024. Thereafter the said committee conducted a detailed enquiry and found that there is discrepancy in the final seniority list wherein names of 25 employees were found missing because in the provisional seniority list 96 employees were there whereas in the final merit list only names of 71 persons were found. On the account of the same, the promotions have wrongly been given to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that after knowing about the said discrepancy by the impugned order, the promotion order dated 13.09.2024 has been cancelled and further it has been mentioned that the further DPC will take the decision regarding promotions in accordance with law.

¶44

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

¶45

It appears from the order of respondent No. 3/The Chief

¶46

6

¶47

Medical and Health Officer, District Hospital Mungeli (C.G.) that before passing the order of cancellation of the promotion, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner has been deprived from submitting any explanation to the reason, for which, the order of promotion has been cancelled. The State is also failed to submit or produce anything showing that before issuance of cancellation order, any notice has been issued to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned, by which, the order of promotion has been cancelled, has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶48

It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.

¶49

It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any

¶50

7

¶51

administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice.

¶52

The order impugned dated 04/10/2024 passed by the respondent No. 3/The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Hospital Mungeli (C.G.) is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to examine the order by which, the promotion has been granted to the petitioner from the post

¶53

of Class-IV to the post of Sub Assistant Grade-III.

¶54

With the aforesaid observation both the writ petitions are allowed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶57

Shoaib

Purshottam Yadav (Peon) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Yadav (Peon) 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

Nandani Tonday Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Dev Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ganga Bai Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivpal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh