1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1321 of 2023 1 - Dr. S.N. Dadsena S/o Late Narayan Prasad Dadsena Aged About 62 Years Working As Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur 3 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Office Of Directorate, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23-12-2022 (Annexure P-1), in which the respondent No.2 partially amended the order dated 15-10-2018 issued by him and declared the total 251 days of petitioner's leave as extraordinary leave without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and also rules and law prevailing in the respondent department. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to accept the total leaves of the petitioner under the head of earned leaves and half 29 pay leaves as accepted by the respondent department in the case of Dr. I. Nageshwar Rao. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is presently posted and working as a Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and has been rendering his services to the respondent–Health Department honestly, sincerely and with an unblemished service record; earlier, the petitioner was transferred from Community Health Centre, Pithora to Community Health Centre, Kurud, District Dhamtari vide order dated 30.07.2016 on administrative grounds, whereafter he applied for medical leave for a period of seven days commencing from 23.08.2016, which was subsequently sought to be extended on account of his illness, and in this backdrop, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing WPS 3 No.1043/2017, pursuant to which this Court vide order dated 02.03.2017 directed the State authorities to take an appropriate decision within four weeks; thereafter, the respondent-State cancelled the transfer order vide order dated 28.04.2017 and permitted the petitioner to continue at Community Health Centre, Pithora, whereupon the petitioner reported for duty on 01.05.2017 and submitted his joining application along with medical certificates issued by Community Health Centre, Pithora and Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur; at the relevant time, the petitioner had to his credit approximately 300 days of earned leave and 520 days of half pay leave, and accordingly, the Chief Medical and Health Officer recommended regularization of the petitioner’s services vide memo dated 12.07.2017, which was further reinforced by respondent No.4 through a letter dated 05.02.2018 recommending grant of 120 days of earned leave and 130 days of half pay leave to the petitioner; however, instead of considering the said recommendations, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 16.07.2018 alleging unauthorized absence of the petitioner for the period from 23.08.2016 to 30.04.2017 and proposing to treat the said period as dies-non, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26.07.2018 along with medical documents substantiating his illness, yet without holding any departmental enquiry or affording proper opportunity of hearing, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s explanation and declared the said period as dies-non 4 vide order dated 15.10.2018; the petitioner thereafter made representations dated 03.12.2018 and 08.04.2019 seeking reconsideration, followed by a further representation dated 24.04.2019 addressed to His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh, but as no decision was taken, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WPS No.1648/2021, which was allowed vide order dated 05.09.2022 whereby the order dated 15.10.2018 was quashed and the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the entire material, service record of the petitioner and relevant facts; it is pertinent to note that the case of one Dr. I. Nageshwar Rao, whose service conditions were identical to that of the petitioner and who had availed 372 days of leave during transfer, was favourably considered by the respondent authorities by adjusting his leave as earned leave and half pay leave, whereas despite repeated representations dated 26.09.2022 and 10.01.2023 and despite the petitioner having sufficient leave to his credit and an exemplary service record supported by multiple commendations, the respondent No.2, by impugned order dated 23.12.2022, mechanically and arbitrarily declared the entire 251 days of petitioner’s leave as extraordinary leave, contrary to applicable rules and without any request from the petitioner, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be quashed, as the petitioner had initially applied for medical leave for seven days w.e.f. 23.08.2016, which was thereafter extended on medical grounds, and when no decision was taken, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing WPS No.1043/2017, wherein this Court vide order dated 02.03.2017 directed the State authorities to take a decision within four weeks, pursuant to which the respondent-State cancelled the petitioner’s transfer vide order dated 28.04.2017 and permitted him to continue at Community Health Centre, Pithora, where he duly reported for duty on 01.05.2017 along with medical certificates issued by the Community Health Centre, Pithora and Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur; it is further contended that at the relevant time the petitioner had 300 days of earned leave and 520 days of half pay leave to his credit, on the basis of which the Chief Medical and Health Officer recommended regularization of the petitioner’s services vide memo dated 12.07.2017, and even respondent No.4, by letter dated 05.02.2018, specifically recommended grant of 120 days earned leave and 130 days half pay leave, yet instead of examining the case in accordance with rules, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 16.07.2018 proposing to treat the period from 23.08.2016 to 30.04.2017 as 6 dies-non, and thereafter, without holding any proper enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, rejected the petitioner’s reply and declared the said period as dies-non vide order dated 15.10.2018, compelling the petitioner to make repeated representations and ultimately to file WPS No.1648/2021, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022, quashing the earlier order and directing the respondents to reconsider the matter after taking into account the entire material, service record of the petitioner and the case of Dr. I. Nageshwar Rao, whose case was admittedly identical and whose prolonged leave was adjusted as earned leave and half pay leave by the respondent authorities; learned counsel submits that despite such clear judicial directions, repeated representations dated 26.09.2022 and 10.01.2023, and the petitioner’s unblemished service record with sufficient leave to his credit, respondent No.2 has mechanically passed the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 declaring the entire 251 days of petitioner’s leave as extraordinary leave, in complete disregard of departmental rules which permit declaration of extraordinary leave only when no other leave is available or when the employee himself seeks such relief, neither of which conditions are satisfied in the present case, and therefore the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, discrimination, violation of principles of natural justice and hostile treatment, warranting interference by this Court. 7 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 has been passed strictly in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No.1648/2021, after due consideration of the material available on record, service record of the petitioner and the relevant rules governing leave, and therefore the allegation of arbitrariness or non-application of mind is wholly misconceived. Learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner claims to have applied for medical leave initially for a short duration, the fact remains that the petitioner remained absent from duty for a prolonged period from 23.08.2016 to 30.04.2017, without obtaining prior sanction of leave for the entire duration in accordance with the applicable rules. Mere submission of medical certificates, that too belatedly, does not automatically entitle an employee to regularization of absence as earned leave or half pay leave, particularly when the absence spans several months and disrupts public services, especially in the Health Department. It is further contended that the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds and was duty-bound to comply with the transfer order. His failure to report at the transferred place and his continued absence without valid sanction justified the issuance of the show cause notice dated 16.07.2018. The respondents, after considering the petitioner’s 8 reply, had earlier treated the period as dies-non, and the said action cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary as it was taken in accordance with service rules and administrative exigencies. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is wrongly seeking parity with Dr. I. Nageshwar Rao, as the principle of negative equality is not applicable in service jurisprudence. Each case of leave regularization depends upon its own facts and circumstances, including nature of duties, administrative requirements and the manner in which leave was applied for and sanctioned. Merely because some relief was granted to another employee does not create an enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was unauthorized and not duly sanctioned. It is further argued that the declaration of the petitioner’s absence as extraordinary leave is well within the powers of the competent authority. As per the applicable rules, extraordinary leave is an appropriate course where the absence cannot be regularized under other leave categories due to procedural lapses or lack of prior approval. The petitioner cannot claim regularization as a matter of right merely because leave was available in his account, especially when he failed to follow due procedure for availing the same. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to submit his explanation and representations, all of which were duly considered by the authorities. The impugned order dated 23.12.2022 reflects due 9 application of mind and partial modification of the earlier order in favour of the petitioner, thereby demonstrating fairness and compliance with judicial directions rather than arbitrariness. Lastly, it is submitted that the scope of judicial review in service matters is limited, and unless the impugned order is shown to be perverse, illegal or in violation of statutory rules, this Hon’ble Court ought not to interfere with a reasoned administrative decision. Since no such illegality or perversity is made out in the present case, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel at length and has carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and is of the opinion that, at this stage, it is not inclined to adjudicate the controversy on merits, particularly with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for adjustment of the disputed period under a specific head of leave or to examine the applicability of parity with another employee. However, what clearly emerges from the record and remains undisputed is the fact that the petitioner was having substantial earned leave as well as half pay leave to his credit, namely 300 days of earned leave and 520 days of half pay leave, at the relevant time. The impugned order dated 23.12.2022 does not reflect adequate consideration of this crucial 10 aspect, namely, the availability of sufficient leave in the petitioner’s leave account, nor does it demonstrate a pragmatic and holistic evaluation of the petitioner’s case, despite the earlier direction of this Court to reconsider the matter by taking into account the entire service record and relevant material. In service jurisprudence, particularly in matters relating to regularization of leave, the competent authority is required to adopt a fair, reasonable and pragmatic approach, especially when the employee is having sufficient leave to his credit and the absence is supported by medical documents. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and solely on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, and further considering the admitted position that the petitioner is having 300 days of earned leave as well as 520 days of half pay leave, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was having sufficient leave in his leave account. The concerned respondent authorities are accordingly directed to examine the petitioner’s case in a pragmatic manner, considering the entire factual matrix, service record, availability of leave, applicable rules and previous judicial directions, and thereafter to take a reasoned decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE