1 / 3 2026:CGHC:20014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9329 of 2025 • Saurabh Mishra S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Grade- 03, Primary Health Centre, Lakhram, C H C Bilha, R/o C/o Nirmal Kumar Devnath, House No. 108, Shivam Vihar Colony, Khamtarai Road, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Medical And Health Officer District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Adtiya Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1) PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondents to restore the annual increment and pay benefits of the petitioner from the date of his wrongful withdrawal. 10.4 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was given compassionate appointment vide order dated 27.01.2016 under certain conditions enumerated therein. Petitioner thereafter was confirmed in service vide order dated 31.07.2018. Surprisingly the Respondent No. 3/ Block Medical Officer had passed an order Annexure P-1 dated 28.07.2025 canceling the increment given to petitioner from his salary. The said order is passed without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner asking the petitioner to submit reply and therefore Annexure P-1 is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, it be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that from the documents enclosed along with writ petition, it is appearing that appointment of petitioner was conditional ie., he has to pass Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA) course from recognized institution within a period of one year. From the documents, it also appears that the petitioner could not pass the said course and obtain certificate within the period prescribed. He however submits that he is not in a position to dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner of non-issuance of any show-cause notice or initiation of any proceeding against petitioner as in the reply filed by the respondents no such pleading is made. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3 / 3 5. Withholding the increment and in particular deducting the increment which has already been given to petitioner is having civil consequences and therefore minimum which is required on the part of employer is to issue show-cause notice to the concerned employee mentioning action to be taken against him/ her, more so when, he or she is a confirmed employee of the respondent-department. 6. Undisputedly, petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice nor any proceeding is initiated against him. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the letter informing the petitioner that the increment given to him has been withdrawn is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the letter dated 28.07.2025 informing the petitioner of withdrawing one increment given to petitioner is quashed. However, respondents-authorities will be at liberty to pass order afresh after following due process of law, if they so desire. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn