Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55941 (CHH)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. SMT. RACHNA MANDAVI

MCC/1111/2025 · 2025-11-03

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1111 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Department Education Mahanadi Of Medical Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Medical Education Health Building Second Floor, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Rachna Mandavi W/o Lt. Shri Pawan Kumar Mandavi Aged About 44 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Shahid Mahendra Karma Memorial Hospital Dimrapal Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.04 17:53:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. The present MCC has been filed by the applicants for extension of time for compliance of order dated 15/04/2025, whereby this Court while disposing the writ petition i.e. WPS No.2530/2025 (in respect of the present non-applicant) and connected matters has directed the respondent DME (Director, Medical Education) to consider and decide the representation within 45 days after affording due opportunity of time. 2. It is worth mention here that non-applicant herein along with other petitioners in WPS No.2530/2025 (in respect of the present non-applicant) and connected matters working as Staff Nurse, under the DME, had filed various petitions seeking direction of this Court to decide their representations. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that a large numbers of employees were affected while snufÒing the gradation list, therefore, each case needs to be examined individually with reference to the initial date of appointment, nature of transfer and present place of posting. Hence, he prays that considering the magnitude of the issues and 3 number of employees involved, six months time may be extended for compliance of the order. 4. Learned State counsel further submits that advance copy was served to Mr. Somkant Verma, who has appeared in similar matters for respondents but he refused to accept the advance copy saying that some contempt proceedings has been filed. 5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the reasons stated by the State, five months time is granted from today to comply the order dated 15/04/2025 passed in WPS No.2530/2025 (in respect of the present non-applicant), subject to due cooperation of the writ petitioner and the other affected employees. 6. In view of above, the present MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge shoaib