1 2025:CGHC:42650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3751 of 2020 1 - Dr. Govind Prasad Tiwari, S/o Late Reva Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 61 Years Occupation - Ayurveda Medical Officer, Raigarh Residence Of Rukmani Vihar Kotara Road Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga And Natural Thrapy, Yunani (Siddh) And Homeopathy (Aayush) Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dr. Gaurishankar Patel, Occupation - Ayurveda Medical Officer, Primary Health Center Badebhandar Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : : Ms. Jigyasa Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv. with Dr. C.S. Gouraha, DAO, Raigarh, Officer-In-Charge of the case. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.25 10:51:06 +0530 2 “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to consider the seniority of the petitioner above than the respondent no.3 and rectified the gradation list of Ayurveda Medical Officer for the year of 2019 and 2020 in accordance with law within the stipulated period. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper of the case, may be allowed. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Ayurveda Medical Officer on 27.05.1985, regularized on 23.06.1987 and retired on 30.06.2025. She would further submit that private respondent No.3 was appointed on similar post on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1985, regularized on 08.06.1987 and retired on 30.06.2022. As such, inception of petitioner was prior to respondent No.3 on said post, despite that, in gradation list prepared in the year 2019, the petitioner was placed below than respondent No.3. Hence, she prays that gradation list may be directed to be rectified by placing name of petitioner above respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that petitioner as well as respondent No.3 have retired and seniority has been sought by petitioner from the year 2019, but nothing has been contended by petitioner that because of placing him below the 3 respondent No.3 in the gradation list, he has been deprived from promotion or any other benefit. Since both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3 have retired, therefore, this petition has become infructuous. 5. Apart from seeking relief of seniority by placing name of petitioner above respondent No.3 in gradation list, neither any relief has been sought for by petitioner nor anything has been pleaded that because of keeping him below the respondent No.3 in gradation list, he has been deprived from any promotion or other benefit. Therefore, in present change circumstances that petitioner and respondent No.3 have retired, no further consideration is required in instant petition, hence, the same is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar