Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Vikash Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:35191
NAFR
SMT
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
WPS No. 2563 of 2021
1 - Dr. Vikash Kumar Gupta S/o Shri C. P. Gupta Aged About 32 Years Posted
As Medical Officer, District Hospital District Surajpur R/o Kharsiya Road,
Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
2 - Dr. Sadhana Singh D/o Shri Pilu Ram Singh Aged About 29 Years Posted
As Medical Officer, Community Health Center Premnagar, District Surajpur
R/o Premngr, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
3 - Dr. Ankit Kumar Paul S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Paul Aged About 24 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District
Surajpur R/o Risdi, District Korba Chhattisgarh
4 - Dr. Pankaj Kumar Kanwer S/o Shri Subram Singh Aged About 24 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District
Surajpur R/o Amadand, District Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh
5 - Dr. Aashish Swaraj S/o Shri Satyanarayan Gupta Aged About 30 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District
Surajpur R/o Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
6 - Dr. Avinash Kumar S/o S. S. P. Singh Aged About 26 Years Posted As
Medical Officer, Community Health Center Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur R/o
Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
7 - Dr. Rohit Jatra S/o Shri G. S. Jatra Aged About 26 Years Posted As
Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal And Child Health District Surajpur R/o
100 Beded Hospital Campus, District Korba Chhattisgarh
8 - Dr. Anubha Jyotsna Lakra D/o Mr. Thadeus Lakra Aged About 26 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o
Ward No. 11, Daldali Road, Nayapara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
9 - Dr. Priyanka Toppo D/o I. Toppo Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical
Officer, Meternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar,
District Durg Chhattisgarh
10 - Dr. Nilam Toppo D/o Shri Ajaydan Toppo Aged About 27 Years Posted As
Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Chantipali,
Barambela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2
11 - Dr. Neeta Kujur D/o Mr. H. Kujur Aged About 27 Years Posted As Medical
Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Mowa District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
12 - Dr. Malati Bai D/o Kirit Ram Aged About 28 Years Posted As Medical
Officer, Maternal And Child Health District Jashpur R/o Pathalgaon District
Jashpur Chhattisgarh
13 - Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhagat S/o Bipta Ram Bhagat Aged About 34 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Pharsabahar, District
Jashpur R/o Kansabel District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
14 - Dr. Shreyansh Parakh S/o Mr. Jagdish Parakh Aged About 27 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Mungeli R/o Golbazar,
Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
15 - Dr. Kiran Binjhwar D/o Late Mr. Shyamlal Binjhwar Aged About 26 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, 50 Beded Maternal And Child Health District
Janjgir Champa R/o Jamnipali, District Korba Chhattisgarh
16 - Dr. Sumit Gupta S/o Dr. S. K. Gupta Aged About 31 Years Posted As
Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Korba R/o Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
17 - Dr. Nadini Kanwar S/o Shri Shukravar Singh Kanwar Aged About 28
Years Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health Katghora, District
Korba R/o Maheshpur, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
18 - Dr. Maheshwari Kanwar S/o Budhwar Singh Kanwar Aged About 30
Years Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, District Korba
R/o Ghankachhar, District Korba Chhattisgarh
19 - Dr. Rashmi Lata Singh W/o Dr. Krishna Kanwar Aged About 31 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, Maternal And Child Health, Katghora, District
Korba R/o Deepka Basti, District Korba Chhattisgarh
20 - Dr. Amitesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 27 Years
Posted As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Patadi, District Korba
R/o Tilaidand, District Korba Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Director Department Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan,nava Raipur,
3
Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 - Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6 - Joint Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7 - Under Secretary Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan,nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Shri Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
22.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-
"10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the applicability of the finance order 21/2020 dated
29/07/2020 (Annexure P/1) vis a vis the Petitioners and the
terms and conditions may be fixed in consistence of the
original advertisement dated 08/05/2020 and as per the
Chhattisgarh Medical Officer (Gazetted) Services
Recruitment Rules, 2013.
10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the correction order dated 27/10/2020 (Annexure
P/5) issued against the Petitioners.
10.3) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the
respondent State to fix the payscale of the Petitioners as
per the Chhattisgarh Medical Officer (Gazetted) Services
Recruitment Rules, 2013, as per the concerned
Advertisement dated 08/05/20 and as per the first
recruitment order. ID
10.4) That this Hon'ble Court or may alternatively be
pleased to direct the respondents to consider the
wages/renumeration of the petitioners in pursuance to the
wages received by the Contractual Medical Officers.
10.5) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioners, in the present Writ Petition, have challenged the
Finance Order No.21/2020, dated 29.7.2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by
the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur,
whereby the probation period of fresh recruits has been fixed to be 3
years instead of 2 years as it was earlier.
3. The petitioners have also questioned the Corrigendum dated
27.10.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Respondents have amended
the earlier issued Appointment Orders to the extent of extending the
period of probation from 2 years to 3 years.
4. The petitioners have also sought a relief of an appropriate direction to
the Respondents for providing them with the pay scale according to the
terms of the advertisement.
5. Brief facts relevant to the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that
all the Petitioners herein had applied for the post of Medical Officers
pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.5.2020 (Annexure P-2) for
appointment in the Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Chhattisgarh. The Petitioners were found meritorious
and orders of appointment were issued in their favour on 27.10.2020.
Thereafter, the order dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-5) was issued,
whereby the probation period was enhanced to 3 years from 2 years.
6. Subsequent to the advertisement dated 8.5.2020, the State
Government had published the Finance Order No.21/2020, dated
29.7.2020 (Annexure P-1). Vide the said Finance Order, the State
Government amended sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (henceforth shall
be referred to as "The Rules of 1961"). By way of the amendment to
the Rules of 1961, the State Government had enhanced the period of
probation of new recruits from 2 years to 3 years. At the same time, the
State Government also amended sub-rule 1 of Rule 22(c) of the
Fundamental Rules, prescribing the stipend payable to government
servants selected by way of direct recruitment. In terms of the
amendment made to the Fundamental Rules, during the probation
period of 3 years, the Government servant would get payment of 70%
for the first year, 80% for the second year and 90% for the third year
and on successful completion of the 3 years' probation period, the
employee would get 100% payment. This action on the part of the
respondents is under challenge through the present Writ Petition.
7. The challenge by the Petitioners is on the ground that when the
recruitment has been done in terms of the Advertisement dated
8.5.2020, the probation period as well as the payment payable to a
probationer should be according to the rules prevailing on the date of
the Advertisement, i.e, on 8.5.2020. It is also the contention of the
Petitioners that the recruitment has been made on the post of Medical
Officer by way of a direct recruitment and the service conditions
governing the field are the Chhattisgarh Medical Officers (Gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules, 2013. Under the said Rules, Clause 13
specifically provides for two-year probation period and in the absence
of any amendment to the said Rules, applying the Finance Order dated
29.7.2020 and enforcing the amendment to the Rules of 1961 is per se
illegal and contrary to law. According to the Petitioners, during the
currency of the recruitment process, the rules of the game cannot be
changed, which is detrimental to the interest of the Petitioners, and on
this ground also, the Petition deserves to be allowed and the
Petitioners should be granted a suitable and appropriate relief.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the
issue involved in the present case has already been decided in WP(S)
No.2090 of 2021 (Dr. Nikita Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Ors.) vide order dated 10.6.2021 and the said order has been
affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.52 of 2022.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents present on the record.
10. The issue involved in the present case has already been decided in
Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2022, wherein the following observations were
made in paragraphs 26, 28 & 29:-
"26. While it is correct as contended by Mr. Rohit Sharma
that some of the persons selected were appointed prior to
issuance of Notification dated 28.07.2020 and thus, are
enjoying the benefit of salary as well as probation period of
two years, the same cannot be a ground to extend such
benefit to the persons who were appointed after issuance of
the Notification dated 28.07.2020. Applicability of the
amendment would depend on the date of appointment.
So far as grant of relaxation to Doctors are
concerned, it is the stand taken by the State that there was
overwhelming necessity for recruitment of Doctors in the
wake of Covid-19 pandemic and as there was reluctance to
join government service with changed conditions due to the
amendment, to meet the exigency of the situation, recourse
was taken to relax the rules for the Doctors. There is no
gainsaying the fact that the Doctors had a pivotal role to
play during the Covid-19 pandemic and they were aptly
called as Covid-19 warriors. In view of the extraordinary
situation created by Covid-10 pandemic, no fault can be
found in granting relaxation to the Doctors in large public
interest for combating the situation and the petitioners, in
the circumstances, cannot claim parity with the Doctors.
28. The petition filed by the aspirants is not maintainable as
the same has been filed on a contingent condition that if
petitioners get appointed in future against any Government
Post, they will get stipend for three years. In our opinion no
cause of action had arisen for petitioners aspiring for
recruitment to government service.
29. In the light of the above discussion and the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find
violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India or
any unreasonableness, arbitrariness in the decision making
process whereby the impugned amendments have been
brought and executive instructions for implementation of the
amended Rules had been issued. Therefore, all the writ
petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs."
11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
