1 2025:CGHC:13091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5369 of 2021 • Dr. Altaf Yousuf Mir S/o Dr. Mohammad Yousuf Mir Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Medical Superintendent , Dr. B.R.A.M.H. Raipur , Resident Of F - 27, Block 5, Doctor Quarters, Medical College Campus , Jail Road , s District Raipur , Chhattisgarh 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Health And Medical Education Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Management Board Autonomous Committee Through , Secretary, Pt. J.L.N. Memorial Medical College , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Director Medical Education Dks Bhawan Parisar , Old Nurses Hostel Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Dean Pt. J.L.N. Memorial Medical College , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Joint Director Cum Superintendent Dr. B.R.A.M. Hospital , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.04.15 15:45:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure - P/1) to the extent that the salary for contractual appointment on the post of Assistant Medical Superintendent of Medical College Raipur has been reduced to Rs. 80,000/-. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the consolidated honorarium of Rs. 50,000/- on 14.11.2013 (Annexure P/3). Subsequently the contractual period of the petitioner was continued on regular basis in the increased consolidated honorarium and lastly it was fixed on 06.03.2020 to Rs. 1,07,098/- for a period of one year up to 31.03.2021, thereafter, his contractual period was again extended for one year vide order dated 25.08.2021 upto 31.03.2022, but the honorarium has been reduced to Rs. 80,000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of reduction of the honorarium he has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the honorarium has been increased, therefore, reduction to the extent of Rs. 80000/- is illegal and against the service jurisprudence which prohibits reduction of salary. Thus, he would pray for enhanced honorarium and arrears thereof. He would further submit that no extension order was passed after 31.03.2022, therefore, he is entitled for difference of arrears. 3 4. The learned counsel for the State would submit that this is a new contract, therefore, it will be governed by this order only and previous service conditions are not applicable to the new service contract as it is a entirely different and new service contract. He would lastly submit that if the terms are not acceptable to the petitioner, he can very well leave the contractual appointment and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the record it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a contractual employee and he was given the employment on consolidated honorarium from 50,000/- to 1,07,098/- as per the terms agreed between the parties, but after that period no extension order was passed. Subsequently, on 25.08.2021 an order was passed fixing the honorarium of petitioner to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- and the said contract period was extended for one year up to 31.03.2022, as such, it is a fresh contract and the contract governed as per the terms agreed between the parties. Since the order dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) was passed fixing the consolidated salary of petitioner of Rs. 80,000/-, this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus directing the State to fix the honorarium of the petitioner, as it is well settled principle of law that a contractual employee shall remain in service till the contract period subsists and after that there is no legal right to continue with the said contractual employment. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the document annexed by the petitioner Annexure P/9 4 the Minutes of Meeting of the Autonomous Body of the Medical College, Raipur wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is Bachlor of Unani Medicine and MBA in Hospital Administration whereas the post of Assistant Superintendent Hospital is equivalent to Assistant Professor and the petitioner does not hold the qualification for appointment on the Assistant Medical Superintendent but the committee after deliberation and looking to the work experience has allowed him to continue as Hospital Consultant on a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 80000/-, as such, also the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for by him in this writ petition and no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish