Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 776 (CHH)

SMT. LACCHAN DAI BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/2719/2021 · 2026-02-04

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:6668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2577 of 2021 1 - Chandra Kumar Joshi S/o Neelambar Joshi Aged About 60 Years Working As Dresser Grade Ii, And Posted At Community Health Centre, Badekipal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishor Pandey S/o Shri Himanchal Prasad Pandey Aged About 48 Years Working As Dresser Grade 1, And Posted At Primary Health Centre Bandaji, Block Lohandiguda District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Karjo Sindre S/o Late Shri Madan Lal Sindre Aged About 48 Years Working As Dresser Grade 1, And Posted At Community Health Centre Mawalighatha, Block Lohandiguda District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramsingh Nagesh S/o Shri Tedhuram Nagesh Aged About 45 Years Working As Dresser Grade 1, And Posted At Primary Health Centre Mardum, Block Lohandiguda District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department Of Medical And Health Service , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical Officer Medical And Health Service, Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2719 of 2021 1 - Smt. Lacchan Dai Baghel W/o Late Shri Pilu Ram Aged About 57 Years Occupation - At Present Working As Sweeper Primary Centre Kurendi, Block - Nangur, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.11 17:07:22 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) Office Of The Chief Medical And Health Officer Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2718 of 2021 1 - Brahmanath Soni S/o Late Shri Tusuram Soni, Aged About 60 Years Occupation At Present Working As Sweeper District Medical Hospital, Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jagdalpur District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Office Of The Chief Medical And Health Officer Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner in WPS No. 2577/2021 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Petitioner in WPS No. 2718/2021 and WPs/2719/2021 : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 05.02.2026 1) As identical issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2) The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- “(i)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 and be directed to allow the petitioners to continue in the promoted post 3 with all consequential benefit, in interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted..” 3) The petitioner in WPS No. 2577/2021 was working on the post of Dresser with the respondents and, vide order dated 13.11.2020 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted to the post of Dresser Grade-I. 4) The petitioner in WPS No. 2719/2021 was working on the post of Sweeper with the respondents and was promoted to the post of Peon vide order dated 13.11.2020. 5) The petitioner in WPS No. 2718/2021 was also working as a Sweeper with the respondents and was promoted to the post of Peon vide order dated 13.11.2020. 6) However without affording any opportunity of hearing, the promotion orders of the petitioners were cancelled by the impugned orders dated 30.03.2021 in WPS Nos. 2718/2021 and 2719/2021 (Annexure P-1) and by the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed in WPS No. 2577/2021. 7) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that prior to passing the impugned orders cancelling the promotions, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, though the impugned orders entail serious civil consequences. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in identical facts and circumstances in WPS No. 2307/2021 (Mohan Singh 4 Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) wherein similar cancellation orders passed by the same department were quashed. 8) Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that there were other similarly situated employees and an enquiry was conducted with regard to irregularities in their promotions. It is submitted that pursuant to directions issued in WP(S) No. 9778/2019 and WP (PIL) No. 91/2019, a committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry. The committee found that the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were wrongly granted promotions to the posts of Dresser Grade-I and Peon. Based on the findings of the committee, the competent authority issued the impugned orders cancelling the promotions. 9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 10) From a perusal of the record, it appears that after the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Dresser Grade-I and Peon respectively, certain writ petitions including a Public Interest Litigation were filed before this Court challenging such promotions. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, an enquiry committee was constituted to examine the promotions granted to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees. The committee found the allegations to be substantiated, whereafter the respondents cancelled the promotion orders of the petitioners by passing the impugned orders. 11) Though the enquiry committee was constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court and irregularities in the promotion process were found, it is equally undisputed that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to issuance of the impugned orders dated 30.03.2021 passed in WPS 5 Nos. 2718/2021 and 2719/2021 (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed in WPS No. 2577/2021 (Annexure P-2). The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. 12) Further, interim orders have been operating in favour of the petitioners and they are continuing to discharge duties on the posts of Dresser Grade-I and Peon. This clearly indicates that the cancellation orders have remained in abeyance during the pendency of these petitions. 13) Considering the fact that cancellation of promotion orders entails serious civil consequences affecting the service career of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 30.03.2021 passed in WPS Nos. 2718/2021 and 2719/2021 (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed in WPS No. 2577/2021 (Annexure P-2) and Annexure P/1 dated 24.03.2021 are vitiated due to violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the said impugned orders are hereby quashed. 14) The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari