1 / 3 2025:CGHC:18543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1989 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shashi Gabhel W/o Shri Mukesh Singh Gabhel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devri, P.S.- Devri, Tahsil And District-Sakti (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Deprtment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mission Director, National Heath Mission Chhattisgarh, Swasthya Bhawan, Third And Fourth Floor, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (Cg) 3 - Collector, Sakti , District Sakti (Cg) 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Saktil, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Block Medical Officer, Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who was appointed as Account Assistant (District/Block) on 30/04/2010 is seeking a direction towards the respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14/11/2022 in the light of the 2 / 3 recommendation made by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as Account Assistant (District/Block) on 30/04/2010, but vide order dated 13/09/2022, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent No.2 on various complaints against the petitioner. He would submit that when the petitioner has submitted an application before the respondent No.3 seeking reinstatement of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has forwarded/recommended the matter to the respondent No.2 with a request to consider the case of the petitioner and to reinstate him. He would further submit that though the respondent No.3 has recommended reinstatement of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 on 21/04/2023, but till date, no decision has been taken by the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submit that if the petitioner is seeking a limited prayer for decision on the forwarding letter of the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2, they have no objection to the said prayer of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It appears from the recommendation of the respondent No.3 dated 21/04/2023, the respondent No.3 while considering the application submitted by the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and also requested the 3 / 3 respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in the place where the petitioner was earlier working. 6. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent No.2 shall take decision on the recommendation of the respondent No.3 dated 21/04/2023 Annexure P-1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep