1 2025:CGHC:7411-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 106 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health Services Chhattisgarh, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Dumeshwari Diwan D/o Shri Kanwal Singh Diwan Aged About 24 Years Occupation - Rural Health Coordinator (Female)/ (Anm) (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) At Sub Health Center Diwanmuda, Block - Devbhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the appellants / State. 2. Learned State counsel submits that advance copy of the appeal has already been given to Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.13 10:13:38 +0530 2 counsel, who appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent herein before the learned Single Judge. 3. When the matter is called out for hearing, Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein is not present. 4. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 248/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Dumeshwari Diwan), and in consequence the order dated 28.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4575/2019 (Dumeshwari Diwan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with following terms:- “In the present case, respondent No. 1 as well as CMHO, District Gariyaband without following the due procedure of law passed the order of termination, such orders are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed in all the petitions is set aside. The corollary of quashment of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) would be that since the petitioners are in service from their respective date of appointment, they would be 3 entitled to the benefits attached to their respective posts. Respondent authorities would be at liberty to take action against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the law if so advised. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.” Against which, the Review Petition No. 248/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs. Dumeshwari Diwan), filed by the writ petitoner seeking review of the order dated 28.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.4575/2019, was also rejected. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 47/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Dunesh Kumari Kanwar) vide order dated 24.01.2025, observing as follows : “8. True it is sanctioned posts were 14 in Gariyaband whereas total 41 candidates was given appointment in the post of ANM, it is not the question here with respect to the faulty appointment but the question involved in the present case is their termination. Once a employee has been appointed on the government post after following the required process and pursuant to that the appointment orders were 4 issued by the authority, they joined the services and drawing salaries as a regular employees, their GPF accounts were opened by the department and thus, the petitioner has attains the status of regular employee and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is applicable to the Government Servant appointed by the State Government. It is a well settled principle of law that if a candidate has been appointed according to the existing Rules, he/ she cannot be removed from his/her posts without following the due process of law. In the CCA Rules, 1966, the procedure has been prescribed for removal of government servant under Rule 14 and 16 of the said CCA Rules, 1966. From perusal of the document annexure P/1 which is the order dated 29/08/2018 passed by respondent No. 1 filed in the writ petition, it is quite clear that except for the issuance of show cause notice, the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 and 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 have not been followed. The learned Single Judge considering the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this 5 Court in writ appeal No. 448 of 2017, Krishna Kumar Dahariya Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. and also considering the documents annexed with the writ petition, held that the termination of the petitioner is bad in law as the same has been passed in violation of the provisions contending Rule 14 and 16 of CCA Rules, 1966. By holding the same, the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside and it is obvious for once the termination order of an employee is set aside, he/ she would be deem to be in service from the date of their appointment and they are entitled for consequential benefits which has rightly been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of respondent/ State to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. The Review Petition filed by the writ appellant/ State has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and dismissing the Review Petition filed by the State. 6 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 and disposing of the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 10. From the foregoing reasons, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” He further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 47/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/State and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 47/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 47/2025. 7 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in WA No. 47/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu