1 2026:CGHC:16579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3175 of 2026 1 - Sunita Kashyap S/o Late Ram Saroop Kashyap Aged About 48 Years R/o Mohalla Darripara, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapr, District- Sarguja (Cg) --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nawa Raiupr, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sarguja, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Sarguja, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dean Government Medical College, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 6 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent District Hospital, Ambikapur,district- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 7 - Collector Surguja, Ex-Officio President, Rogi Kalyan Samiti/ Jeevan Deep Samiti, District Hospital Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Civil Surgeon Ex-Officio Secretary, Rogi Kalyan Samiti/ Jeevan Deep Samiti, District Hospital Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10/04 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been discontinued from service w.e.f. 01.11.2025, without issuance of any show cause notice or passing any reasoned order; 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post on which he was working, with continuity of service; 10.3 Direct the respondents to release the unpaid wages/salary of the Detitioner for the period August 2025 to October 2025, along with interest, as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; 10.4 Direct the respondents to pay regular wages/salary from 01.11.2025 till reinstatement, treating the petitioner to be in continuous service;. 10.5 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations dated 20.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period; 10.6 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, after reinstating him in service, in accordance with law, in light of his continuous and uninterrupted service of more than 20 years, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period; 10.7 Grant any other relief(s), including costs of the petition, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 01.09.2016. She contended that the petitioner was discontinued from service from 19.01.2026 against which, petitioner has submitted representation before the respondent 3 authorities to continue petitioner as daily-wage employee as the petitioner has already served about 10 years of service. She submits that the representation is still pending consideration before the Respondents No. 3 & 4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that protection has been granted to the daily-wage employee/temporary employee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826, Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024], Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. reported in (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the pending representation at the earliest within specified time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to the concerned respondent to consider and take decision on the representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 3 to 5 to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of 4 receipt of representation keeping in mind the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is ordered accordingly. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey