1 2025:CGHC:343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8496 of 2024 1. Smt. Ranjana Kashyap W/o Ashwani Kumar Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Meduka, Block Marwahi, Tahsil Pendra, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 2. Smt. Maleshwari Bhaskar W/o Ravishankar Bhaskar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Basantpur, Block Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 3. Smt. Savitri W/o Jagdish Prasad Kurre Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Korja, Block Pendra, District Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Under Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Collector District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 4. Chief Medical And Health And Medical Officer District Gourella- Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. 5. Block Medical Officer Block Pendra, District Gourella-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Purva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the respondent No.4 has stopped the salary of petitioners for the month of December and also directed that the petitioners would not withdraw their salary in the month of December 2024. 2. Petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- 10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure P-1). 10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem-fit and appropriate. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are appointed on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and there they have joined their respective places in the year 2009 and 2011. As per notification dated 10.10.2024, the respondent No.2 issued a letter and in this letter work and duties of ANM has been clearly specified. Work and duties of the ANM are not to do make entries of online data on the online porter, but the respondent authorities pressurized the petitioners to complete their online work. Vide letter dated 21.10.2024 and 07.10.2024 of the Union of Health Workers submitted an application before the respondent No.4 that online work is not the duty of medical 3 workers, it is the online work of Data Entry Operator, so they are unable to complete their works sincerely. The respondent authorities does not considered the representation and without granting opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 whereby the respondent No.4 has stopped the salary of petitioners for the month of December and has also directed that the petitioners would not withdraw their salary for the month of December 2024. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the impugned order itself it seems that in an illegal and arbitrary manner impugned order has been passed directing for non-withdrawal of salary pertaining to month of December 2024 to the petitioners without giving any notice or holding any enquiry etc. He further submits that order impugned seems to be a punishment order, as such it is not in accordance with law and it is required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that impugned order is not a punishment order but in order to warn the petitioners an order has been passed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the record it seems that the order impugned has been passed without notice which is perse illegal from the face of record further it cannot be passed without giving any notice to petitioners or any enquiry conducted against them, such type of order cannot be passed on the whims and wishes 4 of any authority. If the authority concerned is of the opinion that any negligence has been committed, then it should issue show cause notice detailing the acts committed by the said employee, he is further required to seek a reply in pursuance of notice and then only if necessity demands he can pass appropriate orders. Since from the perusal of impugned order dated 29.11.2024, it does not seems that any notice has been issued to the petitioner and any reply was sought to be filed, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly is hereby quahsed. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.09 11:23:49 +0530