1 2025:CGHC:50751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4195 of 2023 Dr. Neha Patel W/o Dr. Dushyant Patel Aged About 32 Years Working As Gynecologist, At Kirodimal Govt. District Hospital Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Department Of Health Servicec Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - The Director Directorate Of Health Services Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Superintendent Kirodimal Government District Hospital Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - The Collector District Raigarh, (C.G.) --- Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 10.10.2025 1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make the payment of salary to the petitioner from maternity leave from 22.07.2022 to 17.01.2023 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation for grant of benefit (salary) of maternity leave (Annexure P-9) within stipulated time. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary in respect of the maternity leave from 22.07.2022 to 17.01.2023 has not been granted to the petitioner on the ground that her fitness certificate is of temporary in nature, therefore, the petitioner had submitted representation before the concerned respondent, but the same is still pending and yet not decided. Hence this petition. 3. On the other hand, the State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. This Court is amazed by the reasoning given by the concerned authorities, when there is specific provisions for grant of maternity leave along with the salary to the person concerned there cannot be ifs and buts, as such while disposing the writ petition, concerned respondent authorities are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the period, when she was on maternity leave after due verification. It is 3 made clear that salary for the period of maternity leave cannot be withheld for any other reasons, as stated in the present case. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE AMIT PATEL