-1- 2026:CGHC:17963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3068 of 2026 Lamu Porte S/o Ram Singh Porte Aged About 38 Years Worked As Mitanin Trainer At Block- Lormi R/o Bamhani, Post- Surhi, P.S. Lormi District Mungeli (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary Health And Medical Services Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Cg) 2 - Director State Heath Resources Center, State Health Training Center Building, Kali Badi, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Lormi, District Mungeli (Cg) 4 - Block Medical Officer Block- Lormi, District Mungeli (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 20/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That may kindly Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.25 14:06:53 +0530 -2- 10.2 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3, a copy of which is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/1, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to permit the petitioner to resume his duties as Mitanin Trainer of the Mitanin Program for Block Lormi, District Mungeli, along with all consequential service benefits, which she would have been entitled to, had the impugned order not been passed.” 3. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner was working as a Mitanin Trainer under the Mitanin Programmer Project of State Health Resource Centre since 2006. During the entire tenure of service, petitioner has worked honestly and sincerely without any adverse complaint against her. However, all of sudden on 24.08.2023, petitioner was issued a show cause notice by respondent alleging certain irregularities and calling for an explanation. Petitioner duly submitted his reply to said notice. However, without considering the reply appropriately and without affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, solely on the basis of an enquiry report which is conducted behind the back of petitioner, respondent passed impugned order removing /terminating service of petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has sought instructions in the matter and according to his instructions -3- though show cause notice was issued to petitioner with respect to non-satisfactory work, he however, fairly submits that according to his instructions, proceeding in this regard has not been forwarded to Five Members’ Committee as provided under the Circular dated 24th September 2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.196 of 2025 (Horilal Agrawani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected matters has considered the issue and has allowed the writ petitions and therefore this writ petition be also allowed in similar terms. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on circular issued by the State Govt. d dated 24th September 2011 is not disputed by learned counsel for the State, which reads thus : " मितानि प्रशि क्षक क परिवता - यदि खण्ड चिकि त्सा अधि री अथवा जिला सामन्वाय  आं लान अनसा री कि सा धिमता किनन प्रचि!क्ष य# साता$षन नहीं' हीं( ता$ उसा प्ररिरीवा  य+ , किवास्ता.ता सामक्ष जिला सामन्वाय द्वा री इन दि! किन1!2 म3 4 गई अपेक्षिक्षता य+ , सा9, म चिसा य#य$न म चिसा प्रकितावान वा :री प्रकितावान  आं री पेरी ,  वाग। इसा सामक्ष  आं री पेरी प्रचि!क्ष $ अपेन य# म3 सा री ला न हींता ए ' म हीं सामय दिय  सा ता हीं(। ए म हीं पेश्चा ता> प्रचि!क्ष  य# , पेन? सान#! री जिला सामन्वाय प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन अथवा  री रीखन , अन! सा किवास्ता.ता बरीण री किडता खण्ड चिकि त्सा अधि री , अध्यक्षता म3 गकिवाता पे  सास्य2 , साधिमकिता $ प्रकिषता री3ग। -4- धिमता किनन प्रचि!क्ष द्वा री कि सा प्र री , गभीरी अकिनयधिमताता अथवा य#क्रम  उद्देश्य2 वा किवापेरीता आंरीण/ य# कि य  न पेरी भी जिला सामन्वाय साबधिता प्र रीण ,   री प्रकितावान उपेरी$क्ता साधिमकिता $ प्रस्ताता री3ग वा इसा , प्रकिता जिला न$डला अधि री वा री ज्य स्वा स्थ्य सासा न  न्द्र $ उपेलाब्ध री य3ग। साधिमकिता उपेरी$क्ता नसा री प्र प्ता सामक्ष   प्रकितावान  आं री पेरी साबधिता प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन  साब म3 किनण#य लाग। किनण#य रीन हींता साधिमकिता  न्य9नताम तान सास्य साहींमता हीं$न  किहींए। री ज्य स्वा स्थ्य सासा न  न्द्र अथवा सा लान लाय, स्वा स्थ्य सावा ए द्वा री आंवाश्य ता नसा री प्र रीण2 , री ज्य स्तारी सा   रीवा री साबधिता प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन  साब म3 यन साधिमकिता $ अन!रीण ,  सा ता हीं(। इसा प्र री री ज्य स्तारी सा , गई अन! सा अनसा री साबधिता साधिमकिता द्वा री किनण#य चिलाय  न हीं$ग एवा मख्य चिकि त्सा एवा स्वा स्थ्य अधि री द्वा री इसा , किनगरी न ,  न हीं$ग।" 8. Learned counsel for the State also not disputed with regard to bunch of writ petitions filed by similarly placed Mitanins and allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court. Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the claim of similarly placed Mitanins, upon taking into consideration the decision of High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed thus: “9. The issue regarding following procedures is dealt with by High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In the matter of D. Padmini v. Registrar General, High Court, Madras, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 1515, the High Court of Madras has observed as under: "21. It is settled law that a statute must be read as a whole in its context and should be construed in such a manner so as to -5- make it effective, workable and viable. If the meaning is plain and obvious, effect must be given in that sense irrespective of the consequences. The language of the statute should be read as it is and normally, addition or substitution of words is not permitted. Only in case of ambiguity or difficulty to interpret the statute, courts would look into the intention behind legislation of the statute and the object thereof, having regard to the rules of interpretation." 11. In the matter of Chinnam Naidu Kollana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3776, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed thus: “16….. When the Act or Rules provides for a particular procedure, the same has to be followed/adhered to, without any deviation. …..” 12. In the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "54. In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs to be mindful of the legal principle which says that where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in a certain manner, it must be done in that particular manner or not done at all. For this proposition, it would be relevant to extract the following from the judgment in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak: "22. It is unnecessary to refer to the long line of decisions commencing from Taylor v. Taylor [[1876] 1 Ch.D. 426]; Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (2): (1935-36) 63 IA 372 (1936) 37 Cri LJ 897] and -6- ending with Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board ((1980) 1 SCC 499 AIR 1979 SC 1573: (1979) 3 SCR 839], laying down hitherto uncontroverted legal principle that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." 55. The language of the proviso to Section 31 (4) of the IBC appears to be clear with no ambiguity and in those situations, all words finding place in the provision must be given their due meaning. 56. The efforts must therefore be to construe any text, phrase and/or proviso in a reasonable manner without going beyond the limited range of permissibility within which the legislative meaning can be captured. The use of the word 'prior in the proviso, must be given some meaning as by virtue of the same, the statute requires that the act of obtaining CoC approval for the Resolution Plan must be done in a particular manner i.e., the necessary CCI approval for Resolution Plans containing combination proposals must be obtained prior to such Plan. being granted the CoC's approval. 58. In Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, the Supreme Court held: "25.... The language of the Article being plain and unambiguous, it is not open to us to read into it limitations which are not there, based on a priori reasoning as to the probable Intention of the legislature. Such intention can be gathered only from the words actually used in the -7- statute; and in a court of law, what is unexpressed has the same value as what is unintended..." 59. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court held the following: "43. The court cannot proceed with an assumption that the legislature enacting the statute has committed a mistake and where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court cannot go behind the language of the statute so as to add or subtract a word playing the role of a political reformer or of a wise counsel to the legislature. The court has to proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said and even if there is some defect in the phraseology, etc., it is for others than the court to remedy that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate." 60. Significantly, the Supreme Court in Visitor, Aligarh Muslim University v. K.S. Misra held: "13.... It is well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that it is incumbent upon the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. The courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything -8- in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.…" 13. From the aforesaid pronouncements of the High Court of Madras in D. Padmini case (supra), High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Naidu case (supra) and especially the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. case (supra), it is apparent that the procedure which has been directed to be followed as per the direction issued by the State Government has not been followed in the instant matters and orders of removal of the petitioners have been passed even in absence of the concerned parties. 14. In a recent judgment in Swati Priyadarshini case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that opportunity of hearing is a must even for the employees who were appointed temporarily or on contract, if on allegation they are being removed. Since the petitioners have been removed without following the directions issued by the State Government and further they have not been granted opportunity of hearing before passing of their removal orders, further since the so called inquiry as well as the orders of removal have been passed during the pandemic Covid-19 without granting opportunity of hearing, as such the entire action taken for removal of the -9- petitioners is per se illegal. 15. In the present matters, the orders of removal have been passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer alone, therefore, the orders of removal are contrary to the scheme dated 24.9.2011. Accordingly, all the orders of removal of the petitioners, as stated in first paragraph of this judgment, are hereby quashed. 16. Since the petitioners have not worked for a considerable period, as such they cannot claim arrears of remuneration. However, the petitioners are liable to be taken back in their service as Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order before the authorities concerned and in turn the authorities are directed to take back the services of the petitioners as Mitanins and Mitanin Trainees forthwith. The respondents authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24.9.2011, if so advised. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of case and submission of learned counsel for respective parties, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition in terms of order dated 11.03.2025 passed in WPS No.196 of 2025 and other connected matters. The order Annexure P-1 dated 13.02.2024 is quashed. Consequence to follow. Respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in -10- service as Mitanin Trainer. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for arrears of salary/wages. Respondent authority will be at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the provision of Circular dated 24th September 2011, if they so desire. 10.With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/----/-/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen