1 2025:CGHC:2842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1961 of 2014 1 - Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o Birju Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Sanjay Colony, Balodabazar, Ps Balodabazar, Distt Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfre, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Head Of Department, Block 1, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Collector Balodabazar, Distt Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1959 of 2014 1 - Abhishek Mukherjee S/o Hemant Kumar Mukherjee Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 206, Vaishali Pride, Minocha Colony, Ps Civil Lines, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health Services, Chhattistgarh, Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Head Of Department, Block 1, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 3 - The Deputy Director Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Head Of Department, Block 1, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2005 of 2014 1 - Navneet Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ghanshyam Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o Jabbal Gali, Near Rajput Provision Store, Nehru Nagar, Ps Civil Lines, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Chhattisgarh Medical And Health Services, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For State : Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these petitions may be disposed of in light of the policy decision dated 16.1.2020 taken by the State with regard to Rural Medical Assistant (RMA). 3 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that these petitions have been filed against the issuance of show-cause notices, therefore, the petitions are not maintainable. He would further contend that the application of one of the petitioners, Navneet Kumar Jaiswal in WPC No. 2005 of 2014 has already been rejected as the documents submitted by him were found to be forged. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are Rural Medical Assistants (RMAs) and the State has framed a policy on 16.1.2020, therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision afresh in light of the policy dated 16.1.2020, which reads as follows: • “That all the RMA's in the state would be under direct control/supervision of the Medical Officer/Block Medical Officer working at primary health centres and other community health centres. The RMA would work as assistant to the medical officer. • That RMA's would work under supervision and guidance of the Medical Officer/Block medical officer at the primary health centres and health and welIness centre while national programmes are being implemented/executed. • There would be total bar for RMA's to practice independently and in case they are found indulging in the same disciplinary action would taken against them. • RMA's would not be allowed to use prefix Dr. before their name. • RMA's would only provide first aid/stabilization in cases of -4- disease/serious conditions/emergency situations and for further medical aid/help would refer the patient to higher health centre. • RMA's would be under the supervision of the medical officer also vide medium of teleconsultation/telemedicine. • That the post RMA's in the Health department would be below the cadre of Medical officer but would be above other cadres like pharmacist, lab technician, staff nurses and other employees of primary health centres and sub- health centres. • RMA's would work under supervision of the Medical Officer/Block Medical Officer while monitoring and supervising of the national health programmes at primary health centres/ sectors (sub-health centres/ health and wellness centre) for its better implementation/ execution. The RMA's would also review the implementation/ execution of the national health programmes under supervision of the Medical Officer/ Block Medical Officer. RMA's are bound to follow the order/ instructions issued by the state government and directorate of health services from time to time. That the order is to be implemented from immediate effect." 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the claims of the petitioners on their own merit. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), these writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi