Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22137 (CHH)

SMT. KAVITA MISHRA v. SHRI AMIT KATARIA

CONT/76/2026 · 2026-06-18

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:CGHC:24880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 76 of 2026 1 - Smt. Kavita Mishra W/o Shri Vinod Mishra Aged About 46 Years Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Sitonga, Tahsil Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Amit Kataria The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Dr. Anil Shukla Joint Director, Health Services Department, Division Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. G.S. Jatra Chief Medical Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sahdev Yadav, Advocate For respective respondents : Mr.Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition against alleged disobedience of order dated 16.06.2025 passed in WPS No.4564 of 2025, wherein, following observation was made : “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case REKHA SINGH -2- of the petitioners are also found to be similar to those daily wagers/contract basis whose services were regularized, their services be also regularized from the same date. It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 3. Mr. Shrivastava, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularization has already been rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 06.03.2026. 4. At this stage, Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 06.03.2026. 5. No objection from other side. 6. Permission is granted. 7. With the liberty as prayed for, this contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha