1 - Pili Bai Tendulkar W/o Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary State Health Resourced Center, Mantralaya Mahanadi
Case Details
1 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 2025:CGHC:45619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2175 of 2023 1 - Pili Bai Tendulkar W/o Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Devarbod, Block Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District Balodabazar Bhathapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary State Health Resourced Center, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Director State Health Resources Center, State Health Training Center, Bijali Office Chowk, Kalibadi, Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Co-Ordinator District Health Program, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh District Balodabazar Bhathapara Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Center, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh District Balodabazar Bhathapara Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
“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 difficulty 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.” 7 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 9. 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: for “16. ….. When the Act or Rules a particular provides procedure, the same has to be followed/adhered to, without any deviation. …..” 10. 12. In the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. 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 hitherto down legal uncontroverted 8 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 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 of methods 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. the 56. The efforts must therefore be to construe any text, phrase and/or proviso in a reasonable manner without going beyond the limited range of permissibility legislative within which 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 the necessary CCI approval for Resolution Plans containing combination proposals must be obtained prior to such Plan. being granted the CoC's approval. i.e., In Sri Venkataramana 58. 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 9 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 to limitations which are not there, based on a priori reasoning as 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 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 the some defect phraseology, etc., it is for others than the court to remedy that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing the any violence language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for to in 10 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 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 surplusage, if they can have appropriate in application circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute .…” 11.From the aforesaid pronouncements of the High Court of Madras in D. Padmini case (supra), High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Naidu 11 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 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. 12. 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. 13. In the present matters, the orders of removal have been passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer 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. 14. 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 12 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 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.
Arguments
5 - Smt. Farifda Begum W/o Md. Kareem Khan Quereshi Aged About 46 Years (Block Coordinator, Block Raigarh) R/o Village Keridhar, Post And 2 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 Panchayat Saliha, District Balodabazar Bhathapara Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Sangeeta Tandan W/o Amar Tandan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pandripan, Block Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1. To call the entire records from the Respondent pertaining to the matter in hand. 10.2. To quash the enquiry proceedings, order dated 23.02.2023 and updated order no./231/SHRC/mitanin karykram/2020. 10.3. any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of the Petitoner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4. Cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that The petitioner was appointed as Mitanin Prashishak under the State Health Resource Center, Bilaigarh, on 01.03.2012. Despite the petitioner’s complaint against Respondent No. 6, no action was taken by the authorities. After nearly eight months, on 3 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 25.02.2020, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice seeking clarification on two unspecified points; however, the notice failed to disclose the complainant’s identity. The petitioner responded promptly on 28.02.2020, but the subsequent termination order dated 23.02.2023, issued without specifying an effective date, was illegal and arbitrary. The enquiry report underpinning the termination was conducted in a haphazard manner, lacked details of the enquiry committee members, omitted evidence such as written statements or documentary proof, and relied on unsubstantiated handwriting comparison without expert verification, thereby violating natural justice. Moreover, the termination order incorrectly stated that the petitioner submitted a reply to a committee rather than to the coordinator. The petitioner’s appeal against termination was summarily dismissed without reasons, further evidencing procedural impropriety and arbitrariness. 3. It was argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 petitioner has been removed which is illegal and arbitrary. There is specific provisions mentioned in the guidelines for taking action against the Mitanins. However, he has 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: 4 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 मि(cid:2)ता(cid:4)नि(cid:6)(cid:6) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क(cid:4) परि(cid:14)वता(cid:16)(cid:6) यदि(cid:19) खण्ड शि(cid:23)निकत्सा(cid:4) अमि(cid:27)क(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28) " अथव(cid:4) जि(cid:31)ला(cid:4) सा(cid:2)न्वयक क" आं$कला(cid:6) अ(cid:6)%सा(cid:4)(cid:14) निकसा(cid:28) मि(cid:2)ता(cid:4)नि(cid:6)(cid:6) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क(cid:4) क(cid:4)य(cid:16) सा$ता&ष(cid:31)(cid:6)क (cid:6)ीሻ) ीሻ* ता& उसा ्ቚरि(cid:14)व(cid:4)क क" क(cid:4)य, क- निवस्ता/ता सा(cid:2)(cid:28)्ቌ(cid:4) जि(cid:31)ला(cid:4) सा(cid:2)न्वयक ቛኋ(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4) इ(cid:6) दि(cid:19)(cid:9)(cid:4)नि(cid:6)(cid:19)2(cid:9)3 (cid:2)4 (cid:19)5 गई अप"ቌኌ्ቌता क(cid:4)य, क- सा9(cid:23)(cid:28), (cid:2)(cid:4)शिसाक क(cid:4)य(cid:16)य&(cid:31)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:4)शिसाक ्ቚनिताव"(cid:19)(cid:6) व (cid:19):(cid:14)(cid:4) ्ቚनिताव"(cid:19)(cid:6) क" आं(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:14) प(cid:14) क- (cid:31)(cid:4)व"ग(cid:28)। इसा सा(cid:2)(cid:28)्ቌ(cid:4) क" आं(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:14) प(cid:14) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क& अप(cid:6)" क(cid:4)य(cid:16) (cid:2)4 सा%(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:14) ला(cid:4)(cid:6)" ीሻ"ता% एक ' (cid:2)(cid:4)ीሻ क(cid:4) सा(cid:2)य दि(cid:19)य(cid:4) (cid:31)(cid:4) साकता(cid:4) ीሻ*। एक (cid:2)(cid:4)ीሻ पቐኋ(cid:4)ता> ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क" क(cid:4)य(cid:16) क- प%(cid:6)? सा(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:4) क(cid:14) जि(cid:31)ला(cid:4) सा(cid:2)न्वयक ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क& क(cid:4)य(cid:16) सा" प/थक क(cid:14)(cid:6)" अथव(cid:4) (cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28) (cid:14)ख(cid:6)" क- अ(cid:6)%(cid:9)$सा(cid:4) निवस्ता/ता ब(cid:27)(cid:14)ण (cid:14)(cid:4)निडता खण्ड शि(cid:23)निकत्सा(cid:4) अमि(cid:27)क(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28) क- अध्य्ቌता(cid:4) (cid:2)4 गनिवता प(cid:4)$(cid:23) सा(cid:19)स्य3 क- सामि(cid:2)निता क& ्ቚ"निषता क(cid:14)4ग" मि(cid:2)ता(cid:4)नि(cid:6)(cid:6) ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक ቛኋ(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4) निकसा(cid:28) ्ቚक(cid:4)(cid:14) क- ग$भी(cid:28)(cid:14) अनि(cid:6)यमि(cid:2)ताता(cid:4) अथव(cid:4) क(cid:4)य(cid:16)्ቅ(cid:2) क" उቌኔ"श्य3 व निवप(cid:14)(cid:28)ता आं(cid:23)(cid:14)ण/ क(cid:4)य(cid:16) निकय" (cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:6)" प(cid:14) भी(cid:28) जि(cid:31)ला(cid:4) सा(cid:2)न्वयक सा$ब$मि(cid:27)ता्ቚक(cid:14)ण क- (cid:31)(cid:4)$(cid:23) क(cid:14) ्ቚनिताव"(cid:19)(cid:6) उप(cid:14)&क्ता सामि(cid:2)निता क& ्ቚस्ता%ता क(cid:14)4ग" व इसाक- ्ቚनिता जि(cid:31)ला(cid:4) (cid:6)&डला अमि(cid:27)क(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28) व (cid:14)(cid:4)ज्य स्व(cid:4)ቝኚय सा$सा(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:6) क" न््ቖ क& उपला्ቓ क(cid:14)(cid:4)य4ग"। सामि(cid:2)निता उप(cid:14)&क्ता(cid:4)(cid:6)%सा(cid:4)(cid:14) ्ቚ(cid:4)प्ता सा(cid:2)(cid:28)्ቌ(cid:4) (cid:31)(cid:4)$(cid:23) ्ቚनिताव"(cid:19)(cid:6) क" आं(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:14) प(cid:14) सा$ब$मि(cid:27)ता ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क& क(cid:4)य(cid:16) सा" प/थक क(cid:14)(cid:6)" क" सा$ब$(cid:27) (cid:2)4 नि(cid:6)ण(cid:16)य ला"ग(cid:28)। नि(cid:6)ण(cid:16)य क(cid:14)(cid:6)" ीሻ"ता% सामि(cid:2)निता क" न्य9(cid:6)ता(cid:2) ता(cid:28)(cid:6) सा(cid:19)स्य साीሻ(cid:2)ता ीሻ&(cid:6)" (cid:23)(cid:4)निीሻए। (cid:14)(cid:4)ज्य स्व(cid:4)ቝኚय सा$सा(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:6) क" न््ቖ अथव(cid:4) सा$(cid:23)(cid:4)ला(cid:6)(cid:4)लाय, स्व(cid:4)ቝኚय सा"व(cid:4)ए$ ቛኋ(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4) आंवश्यकता(cid:4)(cid:6)%सा(cid:4)(cid:14) ्ቚक(cid:14)ण3 क- (cid:14)(cid:4)ज्य स्ता(cid:14) सा" (cid:31)(cid:4)$(cid:23) क(cid:14)व(cid:4)क(cid:14) सा$ब$मि(cid:27)ता ्ቚशि(cid:9)्ቌक क& क(cid:4)य(cid:16) सा" प/थक क(cid:14)(cid:6)" क" सा$ब$(cid:27) (cid:2)4 (cid:23)य(cid:6) सामि(cid:2)निता क& अ(cid:6)%(cid:9)(cid:14)ण क- (cid:31)(cid:4) साकता(cid:28) ीሻ*। इसा ्ቚक(cid:4)(cid:14) (cid:14)(cid:4)ज्य स्ता(cid:14) सा" क- गई अ(cid:6)%(cid:9)$सा(cid:4) अ(cid:6)%सा(cid:4)(cid:14) सा$ब$मि(cid:27)ता सामि(cid:2)निता ቛኋ(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4) नि(cid:6)ण(cid:16)य शिलाय(cid:4) (cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:4) ीሻ&ग(cid:4) एव$ (cid:2)%ख्य शि(cid:23)निकत्सा(cid:4) एव$ स्व(cid:4)ቝኚय अमि(cid:27)क(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:28) ቛኋ(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:4) इसाक- नि(cid:6)ग(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:28) क- (cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:28) ीሻ&ग(cid:28)।" 5 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 4. 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. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner placing 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 Officer would monitor in respect of the said procedure, as such without following the said procedure the Mitanins or the Mitanin Trainees cannot be removed. 6. 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 6 WPS No. 2175 of 2023 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 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. 7. The issue regarding following of procedures is dealt with by High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. 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:
Decision
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE