Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Peetamber Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
2025:CGHC:36158
Date: 2025.08.01
10:45:37 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2188 of 2021
1. Dr. Peetamber Patel, aged about 26 years, S/o Shr Jageshwar Patel,
Posted as MedicaL Officer, Maternal and Child Health, Pithora, District
Mahasamund (C.G.), R/o Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Dr. Dilip Kumar Satpathi, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Jagdish
Prasad Satpathi, Posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Center
Khallari, District Mahasamund (C.G.), R/o Basna, District Mahasamund
(C.G.)
3. Dr. Ravikant Sahu, Aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Govind Ramsahu,
Posted as Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Durgkondal,
District Kanker, R/o Bhanupratapur, District Kanker (C.G.)
4. Dr. Baldev Netam, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Somaru Ram, Posted
as Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Dantewada, R/o
Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
5. Dr. Divya Yadav, aged about 30 years, D/o Shri Arvind Yadav, Posted
as Medical Officer, Maternal and Child Health, Katghgora, District
Korba, R/o Bhadrapara, Balco Nagar, District Korba (C.G.)
6. Dr. Chandrika Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Suklal, Posted as
Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Surajpur, R/o Ramanujnagar,
District Surajpur (C.G.)
7. Dr. Surendra Pratap Singh aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ratan Singh
Kanwar, Posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Korba
(C.G.)
8. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Kanwar, aged about 32 years, S/o Shri Ram Lal
Kanwar, Posted as Medical Officer, 100 Beded Maternal and Child
Health, District Surajpur, R/o Birda, District Korba (C.G.)
9. Dr. Alka Punam Tigga, aged about 30 years, D/o Shri Irnnis Tigga,
Posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Jashpur, R/o Jaspur
Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
10. Dr. Amita Rajkumari Tigga, aged about 30 years, D/o Shri Late George
Tigga, Posted as Medical Officer, 100 Bed Maternal and Child Health,
District Mungeli, R/o Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur (C.G.)
11.Dr. Murli Manohar Lal, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Hunnar Ram,
Posted as Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Lakhanpur,
District Surguja, R/o Juna Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.)
12. Dr. Divya Tiwari, Aged about 27 years, D/o Mr. Shailendra Tiwari,
Posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital, District Kondagaon, R/o
Bhagat Singh Ward, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
2
13. Dr. Ashotosh Koshale, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Mantram
Koshale, Posted as Medical Officer, Community Health Center,
Bisrampur, District Surajpur, R/o Kalimali Ward, Mungeli, District
Mungeli (C.G.)
... Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health
and Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Director, Department of Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Nava
Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.)
5. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)\
6. Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
7. Under Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate
holding the brief of Mr. Harshmander
Rastogi, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur,
Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25/07/2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
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 pay scale 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.
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 29.07.2020 (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 08.05.2020 (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 of 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 08.08.2020, the State
Government had published the Finance Order No. 21/2020, dated
29.07.2020 (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 the 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
08.05.2020, 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 08.05.2020. 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
29.07.2020 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 10.06.2021 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 has 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
vatti
