1 - Horilal Agrawani S/o Kisan Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.01 20:29:29 +0530 2025:CGHC:12214 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 196 of 2025 1 - Horilal Agrawani S/o Kisan Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 4 Joba, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur Chhattisgarh District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Medical Officer Block-Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 237 of 2025 1 - Smt. Lokeshwari Sahu W/o Moha Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Tarrgodi, Post - Silauti, P.S. - Jhakra, District- Dhamtari C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur C.G. 2 - Director State Health, Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur C.G., District-Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari C.G. 4 - Block Medical Officer Block - Kurud, District - Dhamtari C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 161 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kiran Minj W/o Ranjeet Bada Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Losanga, Post- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building Kali Badi Raipur, C.G., District - Raipur, C.G. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Surguja, District- Surguja, C.G. 4 - Block Medical Officer Block- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 300 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sonamati W/o Kannilal Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Dholdagi, Block- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur C.G., District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Block Medical Officer Blcok- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 489 of 2025 1 - Dulari Bai Sahu W/o Shri Chhannu Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Nadipara, Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director State Health Resource Centre, State Health Training Centre Building Kalibadi, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 352 of 2025 4 1 - Smt. Aasha Tirkey W/o Shari Filoman Tirkey Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhansajhaal, Bakenpara, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Director State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur C.G. District-Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Surguja District- Surguja C.G. 4 - Block Medical Officer Block- Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 77 of 2025 1 - Girja Soni W/o Harischand Soni, Aged About 42 Years R/o Mini Basti, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhatisgarh Through Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Health Resource Centre (S.H.R.C.) Through Its Executive Director, 'state Health Training Centre Building' Near Bijali Office Chowk, Kalibadi, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 447 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jyoti Pal D/o Khel Singh Baghel Aged About 34 Years R/o 181, Perma Para, Bhairamgarh, District- Beejapur, Chhattisgarh. 5 Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Medical Officer Block- Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 197 of 2025 1 - Smt. Droupati Kaushik W/o Shri Harendra Kaushik Aged About 31 Years Mitanin Trainer, Sankul - Mulmula Sector- Chipawand, Block - Kondagaon, Under Mitanin Program Of State Health Resources Center District- Kondagaon, R/o Village, Post- Mulmula Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, State Health Resources Center State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi Raipur C.G., District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - Block Medical Officer Block- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 6 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Respective Petitioners For Respective Respondents : : Shri Bhupendra Singh, Shri Om Prakash Sahu and Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocates Shri Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Shri Ajit Singh, Government Advocate, Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer and Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By the present petitions, the petitioners have challenged their termination from service. The dates of orders of their termination from service, as shown in the petitions, are as under: Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 WPS No. Petitioner Order of Passed By Termination 196 of 2025 Horilal 9.11.2020 Respondent Agrawani No.3 77 of 2025 Girja Soni 16.5.2024 Respondent 489 of 2025 Dulari Bai 16.7.2020 Respondent Sahu No.5 161 of 2025 Smt. Kiran 29.1.2022 Respondent No.3 197 of 2025 Minj Smt. Droupati Kaushik No.4 25.7.2022 Respondent No.4 6 237 of 2025 Smt. 10.6.2022 Respondent Lokeshwari No.2 7 300 of 2025 Sahu Smt. 24.7.2019 Respondent 7 Sonamati No.4 352 of 2025 Smt. Aasha Orally Respondent Tirkey No.4 447 of 2025 Smt. Jyoti Pal 11.1.2023 Respondent 8 9 No.4 2. Since common issue is involved in all the present petitions, as such they are being clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. All the petitioners in the present petitions were working as Mitanin or Mitanin Trainee. They are low paid employees and they are influential in providing government scheme in respect of health especially to the health of women and children and in the rural set up of the country. They are champion health workers. In a country like India, the contribution rendered by these Mitanins (health workers) are important. They are facilitating the programmes issued by the National Health Mission to the village people at large and their contribution to the society cannot be weighed by the meagre remuneration paid to them. Though they are key persons so far as it relates to rural health mission, however, their contribution is being ignored by the respondents authorities and it seems that they are being harassed by the authorities only on the basis of some meagre mistakes a harsh step has been taken by the respondents authorities while passing termination order against these Mitanins (health workers). The apathy of some of the petitioners is 8 that they were terminated during the period when the country was facing Covid-19 pandemic and there was necessity of these health workers to the entire society. In order to decide all these writ petitions, WPS No.77 of 2025 is taken up as the lead case as in the said case the documents and other materials have been annexed in a proper manner. In the said writ petition, following reliefs, which are identical
Decision
in all the writ petitions, are claimed: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding and directing to the respondents that the petitioner should be re-appointed to the post of Mitanin Trainee "Urban Mitanin Program" and to quash the procedure for removal of petitioner as unlawful and bad in law and in violation of established principle of natural law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set aside the order dated 16.05.2024 and direct the respondent no 1 and 2 to decide the representation dated 15.07.2024. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent no 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential service benefit along with back wages. 10.4 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be granted along with cost of the petition.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on 9 the post of Mitanin Trainee under "Urban Mitanin Program" against whom certain allegations were made on 11/03/2016 by Mahila Arogya Samiti and few others Mitanins with regard to harassment and financial irregularities committed by her. The said complaint was made before the State Health Resource Center (SHRC), Raipur, who in turn, investigated the same and removed her from the said program, i.e. "Urban Mitanin Program", on 01.04.2016. Thereafter on 10/05/2016, an application was made by the petitioner before the District Program OfÏcer, Women and Child Development Department, Bilaspur, and the District Program OfÏcer has directed the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer, Bilaspur to hold an inquiry and to submit its report to this effect. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer constituted an Inquiry Committee which had submitted its report before the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer, wherein the petitioner was not found to be guilty of the allegations levied against her and accordingly it was recommended that it would appropriate for the petitioner to reinstate in the said program. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the SHRC, Raipur to consider the application of the petitioner for reinstatement but the same has not been considered being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent authorities the petitioner filed a WP(S) 963 of 2020 before this Hon'ble court on 26.02.2020 whereas the Hon'ble court has given liberty to make a fresh 10 representation within a period of three weeks from today before the Collector, Bilaspur and the said authority shall in turn shall consider and decide the representation. In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble High court passed in WP(S) no 963 of 2020, Collector Bilaspur issued notice to the petitioner for the matter to be heard on 18.06.2020 and on 25.06.2020 but the petitioner was unable to appear on both the dates and thereafter the ex parte order has been passed against her by the Collector, Bilaspur on 25.06.2020 stating that the date of investigation report is based on which petitioner claims to be absolved of all the charges is unclear moreover the SHRC has the power to appoint or remove the Mitanins under the program and complaint of the SHRC being correct and the case of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage of petitioner's son and daughter was to be solemnized at the relevant point of time, i.e. on 19.06.2020 and 22.06.2020, and therefore, on 02.06.2020 and 16.06.2020 her husband was granted permission for the said purpose from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. It thus, appears that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was engaged with regard to the solemnization of the marriage of her son and daughter, owing to which, she could not appear before the Court of Collector, Bilaspur on 18.06.2020 and was, therefore, proceeded ex parte on the said date. That, after proceeding ex parte on 18.06.2020, the final order was passed on 25.06.2020, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(S) No. 11 4211/2020 and this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 13.09.2023 was pleased to set aside the ex parte impugned order and matter is remitted back to the Respondent No. 3 and directed the petitioner to remain present before the authority on 20.10.2023. As directed by the Hon'ble court by its order dated 13.09.2024, the concerned authority/ Collector were directed to decide the said proceeding afresh in accordance law but without giving any opportunity and without considering the order passed by this Hon'ble court, the Collector has passed the order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P/1), holding that there is no illegality in the earlier order has dismiss the representation made by the petitioner as not maintainable, though the Hon'ble Court has directed for deciding the proceedings afresh in accordance with law. Without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without going into the merits of the case upheld its earlier order, the adverse finding recorded by the authority without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cast stigma on her service carrier and in future also the remarks/adverse finding recorded will come in the way of petitioners future carrier and therefore order passed is per se illegal bad in law and deserves to be set aside. On 15.07.2024 the petitioner made a representation before the SHRC to consider the representation and to reinstate the petitioner to her post but till date it is pending before the authority. Hence, these petitions. 5. It was argued by learned counsel appearing for the 12 petitioners that without following the procedure envisaged as per the guidelines framed for selection of Mitanins and removal of the Mitanins as well as Mitanin Cluster Coordination issued by the National health Mission, Chhattisgarh, the petitioners have been removed which is illegal and arbitrary. There is specific provisions mentioned in the guidelines for taking action against the Mitanins. However, they have not been followed by the concerned authorities and only on the whims and capriciousness of the respondents authorities the petitioners and other Mitanins have been removed from services. The procedure with regard to removal of Mitanin is described in Circular dated 24.9.2011 and same is reproduced herein below: “मि(cid:2)तामि(cid:5)(cid:5) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक का परि(cid:14)वत(cid:16)(cid:5) - यमि(cid:18) खण्ड चि(cid:23)मिकत्सा अचि(cid:27)का(cid:14)ी अथवा जि(cid:31)ला स(cid:2)न्वयक के आं कल(cid:5) अ(cid:5)ुसा(cid:14) मिकसी मि(cid:2)तामि(cid:5)(cid:5) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक का काय(cid:16) संतोष(cid:31)(cid:5)क (cid:5)हीं है तो उस ्ቚरि(cid:14)वाक के काय, की मिवस्तृत स(cid:2)ी्ቌा जि(cid:31)ला स(cid:2)न्वयक ्ቛा(cid:14)ा इ(cid:5) मि(cid:18)(cid:9)ामि(cid:5)(cid:18)2(cid:9)ों (cid:2)ें (cid:18)ी गई अपेचि्ቌत काय, की सू(cid:23)ी, (cid:2)ाजिसक काय(cid:16)यो(cid:31)(cid:5)ा (cid:2)ाजिसक ्ቚचितवे(cid:18)(cid:5) व (cid:18)ौ(cid:14)ा ्ቚचितवे(cid:18)(cid:5) के आ(cid:27)ा(cid:14) प(cid:14) की (cid:31)ावेगी। इस स(cid:2)ी्ቌा के आ(cid:27)ा(cid:14) प(cid:14) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक को अप(cid:5)े काय(cid:16) (cid:2)ें सु(cid:27)ा(cid:14) ला(cid:5)े हेतु एक '(cid:2)ाह का स(cid:2)य मि(cid:18)या (cid:31)ा सकता है। एक (cid:2)ाह प्ቐात् ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक के काय(cid:16) की पु(cid:5)ः स(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:9)ा क(cid:14) जि(cid:31)ला स(cid:2)न्वयक ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक को काय(cid:16) से पृथक क(cid:14)(cid:5)े अथवा (cid:31)ा(cid:14)ी (cid:14)ख(cid:5)े की अ(cid:5)ु(cid:9)ंसा मिवस्तृत ब(cid:27)(cid:14)ण (cid:14)ाचिडत खण्ड चि(cid:23)मिकत्सा अचि(cid:27)का(cid:14)ी की अध्य्ቌता (cid:2)ें गमिवत पां(cid:23) स(cid:18)स्यों की समि(cid:2)चित को ्ቚेमिषत क(cid:14)ेंगे। मि(cid:2)तामि(cid:5)(cid:5) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक ्ቛा(cid:14)ा मिकसी ्ቚका(cid:14) की गंभी(cid:14) अमि(cid:5)यमि(cid:2)तता अथवा काय(cid:16)्ቅ(cid:2) के उ्ቌेश्यों व मिवप(cid:14)ीत आ(cid:23)(cid:14)ण@काय(cid:16) मिकये (cid:31)ा(cid:5)े प(cid:14) भी जि(cid:31)ला स(cid:2)न्वयक संबंचि(cid:27)त 13 ्ቚक(cid:14)ण की (cid:31)ां(cid:23) क(cid:14) ्ቚचितवे(cid:18)(cid:5) उप(cid:14)ो्ሹ समि(cid:2)चित को ्ቚस्तुत क(cid:14)ेंगे व इसकी ्ቚचित जि(cid:31)ला (cid:5)ोडल अचि(cid:27)का(cid:14)ी व (cid:14)ाज्य स्वास्थ्य संसा(cid:27)(cid:5) के न््ቖ को उपलब्(cid:27) क(cid:14)ायेंगे। समि(cid:2)चित उप(cid:14)ो्ሹा(cid:5)ुसा(cid:14) ्ቚा् स(cid:2)ी्ቌा (cid:31)ां(cid:23) ्ቚचितवे(cid:18)(cid:5) के आ(cid:27)ा(cid:14) प(cid:14) संबंचि(cid:27)त ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक को काय(cid:16) से पृथक क(cid:14)(cid:5)े के संबं(cid:27) (cid:2)ें मि(cid:5)ण(cid:16)य लेगी। मि(cid:5)ण(cid:16)य क(cid:14)(cid:5)े हेतु समि(cid:2)चित के न्यू(cid:5)त(cid:2) ती(cid:5) स(cid:18)स्य सह(cid:2)त हो(cid:5)े (cid:23)ामिहए। (cid:14)ाज्य स्वास्थ्य संसा(cid:27)(cid:5) के न््ቖ अथवा सं(cid:23)ाल(cid:5)ालय] स्वास्थ्य सेवाएं ्ቛा(cid:14)ा आवश्यकता(cid:5)ुसा(cid:14) ्ቚक(cid:14)णों की (cid:14)ाज्य स्त(cid:14) से (cid:31)ां(cid:23) क(cid:14)वाक(cid:14) संबंचि(cid:27)त ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक को काय(cid:16) से पृथक क(cid:14)(cid:5)े के संबं(cid:27) (cid:2)ें (cid:23)य(cid:5) समि(cid:2)चित को अ(cid:5)ु(cid:9)(cid:14)ण की (cid:31)ा सकती है। इस ्ቚका(cid:14) (cid:14)ाज्य स्त(cid:14) से की गई अ(cid:5)ु(cid:9)ंसा अ(cid:5)ुसा(cid:14) संबंचि(cid:27)त समि(cid:2)चित ्ቛा(cid:14)ा मि(cid:5)ण(cid:16)य लिलया (cid:31)ा(cid:5)ा होगा एवं (cid:2)ुख्य चि(cid:23)मिकत्सा एवं स्वास्थ्य अचि(cid:27)का(cid:14)ी ्ቛा(cid:14)ा इसकी मि(cid:5)ग(cid:14)ा(cid:5)ी की (cid:31)ा(cid:5)ी होगी।” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has filed reply stating that complaints were filed against the Mitanins as such they have rightly been removed though upon query it has been submitted that the National Health Mission Chhattisgarh has framed guidelines in respect of appointment ad removal of Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees, according to which, a detail procedure is required to be followed. However, he submits that from perusal of the removal orders, it seems that the said procedure has not been followed. Perusal of the orders of removal also goes to show that though notices were issued, however, since the concerned Mitanins could not appear, therefore, they were declared ex parte and thereafter orders regarding their removal have been passed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners placing 14 reliance upon a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2024 SC 4339 submit that since there is a procedure for appointment and removal of the Mitanin and Mitanin Trainee, according to which, certain inquiries are required to be conducted and after recommendation of the committee the orders for removal can be taken. The Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer would monitor in respect of the said procedure, as such without following the said procedure the Mitanins or the Mitanin Trainees cannot be removed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. I have also considered the directions issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh in which certain guidelines have been issued in respect of appointment, work and implementation of programmes as well as removal of Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that necessary direction which has been issued by the State Government has not been followed and without following the procedure, orders have been passed for removal of the Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees. Perusal of the orders also goes to show that the orders for removal have been passed during the period when the entire world was facing pandemic Covid- 19. Most of the orders of removal have been passed between 15 June and November, 2020. In some of the cases, upon preliminary inquiry, it was found that the complaint made against the petitioners were not found to be proved. However, despite that, removal orders have been passed. 9. The issue regarding following of procedures is dealt with by High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In the matter of D. Padmini v. Registrar General, High Court, Madras, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1515, the High Court of Madras has observed as under: “21. It is settled law that a statute must be read as a whole in its context and should be construed in such a manner so as to make it effective, workable and viable. If the meaning is plain and obvious, effect must be given in that sense irrespective of the consequences. The language of the statute should be read as it is and normally, addition or substitution of words is not permitted. Only in case of ambiguity or difÏculty to interpret the statute, courts would look into the intention behind legislation of the statute and the object thereof, having regard to the rules of interpretation.” 11. In the matter of Chinnam Naidu Kollana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3776, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed thus: “16. ….. When the Act or Rules provides for a particular procedure, the same has to be followed/adhered to, without any deviation. …..” 12. In the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. 16 Girish Sriram Juneja and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “54. In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs to be mindful of the legal principle which says that where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in a certain manner, it must be done in that particular manner or not done at all. For this proposition, it would be relevant to extract the following from the judgment in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak: “22. ….. It is unnecessary to refer to the long line of decisions commencing from Taylor v. Taylor [[1876] 1 Ch.D. 426]; Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (2): (1935-36) 63 IA 372: (1936) 37 Cri LJ 897] and ending with Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board ((1980) 1 SCC 499 AIR 1979 SC 1573: (1979) 3 SCR 839], laying down hitherto uncontroverted legal principle that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." 55. The language of the proviso to Section 31 (4) of the IBC appears to be clear with no ambiguity and in those situations, all words finding place in the provision must be given their due meaning. 56. The efforts must therefore be to construe any text, 17 phrase and/or proviso in a reasonable manner without going beyond the limited range of permissibility within which the legislative meaning can be captured. The use of the word 'prior' in the proviso, must be given some meaning as by virtue of the same, the statute requires that the act of obtaining CoC approval for the Resolution Plan must be done in a particular manner i.e., the necessary CCI approval for Resolution Plans containing combination proposals must be obtained prior to such Plan. being granted the CoC's approval. 58. In Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, the Supreme Court held: "25. … The language of the Article being plain and unambiguous, it is not open to us to read into it limitations which are not there, based on a priori reasoning as to the probable intention of the legislature. Such intention can be gathered only from the words actually used in the statute; and in a court of law, what is unexpressed has the same value as what is unintended..." 59. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court held the following: "43. The court cannot proceed with an assumption that the legislature enacting the statute has committed a mistake and where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court 18 cannot go behind the language of the statute so as to add or subtract a word playing the role of a political reformer or of a wise counsel to the legislature. The court has to proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said and even if there is some defect in the phraseology, etc., it is for others than the court to remedy that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate." 60. Significantly, the Supreme Court in Visitor, Aligarh Muslim University v. K.S. Misra held: "13. ... It is well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that it is incumbent upon the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. The courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite 19 surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute .…” 13. From the aforesaid pronouncements of the High Court of Madras in D. Padmini case (supra), High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Naidu case (supra) and especially the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. case (supra), it is apparent that the procedure which has been directed to be followed as per the direction issued by the State Government has not been followed in the instant matters and orders of removal of the petitioners have been passed even in absence of the concerned parties. 14. In a recent judgment in Swati Priyadarshini case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that opportunity of hearing is a must even for the employees who were appointed temporarily or on contract, if on allegation they are being removed. Since the petitioners have been removed without following the directions issued by the State Government and further they have not been granted opportunity of hearing before passing of their removal orders, further since the so called inquiry as well as the orders of removal have been passed during the pandemic Covid-19 without granting opportunity of hearing, as such the entire action taken for removal of the petitioners is per se illegal. 15. In the present matters, the orders of removal have been 20 passed by the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer alone, therefore, the orders of removal are contrary to the scheme dated 24.9.2011. Accordingly, all the orders of removal of the petitioners, as stated in first paragraph of this judgment, are hereby quashed. 16. Since the petitioners have not worked for a considerable period, as such they cannot claim arrears of remuneration. However, the petitioners are liable to be taken back in their service as Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order before the authorities concerned and in turn the authorities are directed to take back the services of the petitioners as Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees forthwith. The respondents authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24.9.2011, if so advised. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Gopal Singh (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Sd/- JUDGE