1 2026:CGHC:16353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5388 of 2022 * - Dr. Priyanka Nayak W/o Ajay Nayak Aged About 36 Years Working As Ayush Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Dabhra, Block- Dabhra,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Mission Director National Health Mission, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Dabhra, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Jainab Vanak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2, 4 to 6/State For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.10 17:02:35 +0530 2 the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue in service by way of reinstatement. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Ms. Jainab Vanak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner successfully completed selection process and was appointed on the post of Ayush Medical Officer on contract basis vide order dated 25.01.2021 for period of 01 year. She would submit that the salary of 04 months was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, a writ petition was filed and when the respondent authorities were served with notice, they passed order Annexure P/1 dated 27.07.2022, whereby a decision was taken to not renew the contractual period of the petitioner. She would contend that the decision has been taken after evaluating the ACR of the petitioner for year 2021-22 and therefore the order is punitive in nature. She would pray to set aside the order Annexure P/1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that non-renewal of contractual period after expiry of its tenure is not a punishment. They would contend that the order Annexure P/1 dated 27.07.2022 is neither punitive nor stigmatic and it is a communication with regard to completion of her tenure. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the order Annexure P/1 dated 27.07.2022, I have no hesitation to hold that it is neither an order of termination of 3 services and same is not punitive in nature. It appears that after completion of the contractual period, respondent authorities did not extend the contractual period. Thus, the contention made by Ms. Jainab Vanak is hereby rejected and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue her representation Annexure P/6 and it is expected from the respondent authorities will decide it in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti