1 (WPS No. 1129 of 2018) 2025:CGHC:14573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1129 of 2018 1 - Smt. R. Narsamma W/o Shri Basant Reddy Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kirndul, House No. 163, Ward No. 15, Police Station Kirndul, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Ayush, Old Nurses Hostel, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Old Mantralaya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - The Collector, District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - District- Ayurveda Officer, District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Rupendra Dewangan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.29 10:57:07 +0530 2 (WPS No. 1129 of 2018) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 26.03.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.4, whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Dispensary Servant (Aushdhalaya Sewak) has been revoked. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appointment to the said post was revoked without affording any opportunity of hearing to her, which is unsustainable and bad in law and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Dispensary Servant (Aushdhalaya Sewak) which is a Class-IV post on 25.07.2017, however, 3 (WPS No. 1129 of 2018) her appointment was terminated vide impugned order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P/1) and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to her, which is in the teeth of principles of natural justice. 6. Consequently, impugned order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. However, the respondent No.4/competent authority is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, looking to the administrative exigency, if any, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!