Rao High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35191 NAFR SMT NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2563 of 2021 1 - Dr. Vikash Kumar Gupta S/o Shri C. P. Gupta Aged About 32 Years Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital District Surajpur R/o Kharsiya Road, Chhattisgarh Ambikapur Surguja District 2 - Dr. Sadhana Singh D/o Shri Pilu Ram Singh Aged About 29 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh R/o Premngr, Surajpur District 3 - Dr. Ankit Kumar Paul S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Paul Aged About 24 Years Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Chhattisgarh District Surajpur Risdi, R/o Korba
Legal Reasoning
4 - Dr. Pankaj Kumar Kanwer S/o Shri Subram Singh Aged About 24 Years Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Surajpur R/o Amadand, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 5 - Dr. Aashish Swaraj S/o Shri Satyanarayan Gupta Aged About 30 Years Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Chhattisgarh District Surajpur Duldula, Jashpur R/o 6 - Dr. Avinash Kumar S/o S. S. P. Singh Aged About 26 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur R/o Chhattisgarh Bishrampur, Surajpur District 7 - Dr. Rohit Jatra S/o Shri G. S. Jatra Aged About 26 Years Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Surajpur R/o Korba Chhattisgarh 100 Beded Hospital Campus, District 8 - Dr. Anubha Jyotsna Lakra D/o Mr. Thadeus Lakra Aged About 26 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Ward No. 11, Daldali Road, Nayapara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 9 - Dr. Priyanka Toppo D/o I. Toppo Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Meternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh District Durg 10 - Dr. Nilam Toppo D/o Shri Ajaydan Toppo Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Chantipali, Chhattisgarh Barambela, Raigarh District 2 11 - Dr. Neeta Kujur D/o Mr. H. Kujur Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Mowa District Raipur Chhattisgarh 12 - Dr. Malati Bai D/o Kirit Ram Aged About 28 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Pathalgaon District Chhattisgarh Jashpur 13 - Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhagat S/o Bipta Ram Bhagat Aged About 34 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Pharsabahar, District Chhattisgarh District Jashpur Kansabel Jashpur R/o 14 - Dr. Shreyansh Parakh S/o Mr. Jagdish Parakh Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Mungeli R/o Golbazar, Chhattisgarh Mungeli Mungeli District 15 - Dr. Kiran Binjhwar D/o Late Mr. Shyamlal Binjhwar Aged About 26 Years Posted As Medical Officer, 50 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Korba Chhattisgarh Janjgir Champa R/o Jamnipali, District 16 - Dr. Sumit Gupta S/o Dr. S. K. Gupta Aged About 31 Years Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Korba R/o Sarkanda, District Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 17 - Dr. Nadini Kanwar S/o Shri Shukravar Singh Kanwar Aged About 28 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh Korba R/o Maheshpur, Katghora, District 18 - Dr. Maheshwari Kanwar S/o Budhwar Singh Kanwar Aged About 30 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, District Korba Chhattisgarh District R/o Ghankachhar, Korba 19 - Dr. Rashmi Lata Singh W/o Dr. Krishna Kanwar Aged About 31 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh Korba R/o Deepka Basti, District 20 - Dr. Amitesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Patadi, District Korba R/o Tilaidand, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Chhattisgarh Raipur 2 - Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Raipur Chhattisgarh Bhawan,nava Raipur, District Nagar, Atal 3 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Raipur Chhattisgarh Bhawan,nava Raipur, District Nagar, Atal 4 - Director Department Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 5 - Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Raipur Chhattisgarh Bhawan,nava Raipur, District Nagar, Atal 6 - Joint Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,nava Chhattisgarh District Raipur, Nagar, Raipur Atal 7 - Under Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Shri Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the applicability of the finance order 21/2020 dated 29/07/2020 (Annexure P/1) vis a vis the Petitioners and the terms and conditions may be fixed in consistence of the original advertisement dated 08/05/2020 and as per the Chhattisgarh Medical Officer (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the correction order dated 27/10/2020 (Annexure P/5) issued against the Petitioners. 10.3) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent State to fix the payscale of the Petitioners as per the Chhattisgarh Medical Officer (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013, as per the concerned Advertisement dated 08/05/20 and as per the first recruitment order. ID 10.4) That this Hon'ble Court or may alternatively be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the 4 wages/renumeration of the petitioners in pursuance to the wages received by the Contractual Medical Officers. 10.5) 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.” 2. The petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, have challenged the Finance Order No.21/2020, dated 29.7.2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the probation period of fresh recruits has been fixed to be 3 years instead of 2 years as it was earlier. 3. The petitioners have also questioned the Corrigendum dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Respondents have amended the earlier issued Appointment Orders to the extent of extending the period of probation from 2 years to 3 years. 4. The petitioners have also sought a relief of an appropriate direction to the Respondents for providing them with the pay scale according to the terms of the advertisement. 5. Brief facts relevant to the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that all the Petitioners herein had applied for the post of Medical Officers pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.5.2020 (Annexure P-2) for appointment in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh. The Petitioners were found meritorious and orders of appointment were issued in their favour on 27.10.2020. Thereafter, the order dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-5) was issued, whereby the probation period was enhanced to 3 years from 2 years. 6. Subsequent to the advertisement dated 8.5.2020, the State Government had published the Finance Order No.21/2020, dated 5 29.7.2020 (Annexure P-1). Vide the said Finance Order, the State Government amended sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (henceforth shall be referred to as "The Rules of 1961"). By way of the amendment to the Rules of 1961, the State Government had enhanced the period of probation of new recruits from 2 years to 3 years. At the same time, the State Government also amended sub-rule 1 of Rule 22(c) of the Fundamental Rules, prescribing the stipend payable to government servants selected by way of direct recruitment. In terms of the amendment made to the Fundamental Rules, during the probation period of 3 years, the Government servant would get payment of 70% for the first year, 80% for the second year and 90% for the third year and on successful completion of the 3 years' probation period, the employee would get 100% payment. This action on the part of the respondents is under challenge through the present Writ Petition. 7. The challenge by the Petitioners is on the ground that when the recruitment has been done in terms of the Advertisement dated 8.5.2020, the probation period as well as the payment payable to a probationer should be according to the rules prevailing on the date of the Advertisement, i.e, on 8.5.2020. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that the recruitment has been made on the post of Medical Officer by way of a direct recruitment and the service conditions governing the field are the Chhattisgarh Medical Officers (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013. Under the said Rules, Clause 13 specifically provides for two-year probation period and in the absence of any amendment to the said Rules, applying the Finance Order dated 29.7.2020 and enforcing the amendment to the Rules of 1961 is per se 6 illegal and contrary to law. According to the Petitioners, during the currency of the recruitment process, the rules of the game cannot be changed, which is detrimental to the interest of the Petitioners, and on this ground also, the Petition deserves to be allowed and the Petitioners should be granted a suitable and appropriate relief. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided in WP(S) No.2090 of 2021 (Dr. Nikita Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) vide order dated 10.6.2021 and the said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.52 of 2022. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 10. The issue involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2022, wherein the following observations were made in paragraphs 26, 28 & 29:- “26. While it is correct as contended by Mr. Rohit Sharma that some of the persons selected were appointed prior to issuance of Notification dated 28.07.2020 and thus, are enjoying the benefit of salary as well as probation period of two years, the same cannot be a ground to extend such benefit to the persons who were appointed after issuance of the Notification dated 28.07.2020. Applicability of the amendment would depend on the date of appointment. So far as grant of relaxation to Doctors are concerned, it is the stand taken by the State that there was overwhelming necessity for recruitment of Doctors in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and as there was reluctance to join government service with changed conditions due to the amendment, to meet the exigency of the situation, recourse was taken to relax the rules for the Doctors. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Doctors had a pivotal role to play during the Covid-19 pandemic and they were aptly called as Covid-19 warriors. In view of the extraordinary situation created by Covid-10 pandemic, no fault can be found in granting relaxation to the Doctors in large public interest for combating the situation and the petitioners, in the circumstances, cannot claim parity with the Doctors. 7 28. The petition filed by the aspirants is not maintainable as the same has been filed on a contingent condition that if petitioners get appointed in future against any Government Post, they will get stipend for three years. In our opinion no cause of action had arisen for petitioners aspiring for recruitment to government service. 29. In the light of the above discussion and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India or any unreasonableness, arbitrariness in the decision making process whereby the impugned amendments have been brought and executive instructions for implementation of the amended Rules had been issued. Therefore, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge