Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Covid 19 Swastha Sewa Sangathan ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13657 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13657 MP
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Covid 19 Swastha Sewa Sangathan ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
                                                       1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                           ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 5651 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          COVID 19 SWASTHA SEWA SANGATHAN MADHYA
                          PR AD ES H , A SOCIETY REGISTRED UNDER THE
                          PROVISIONS OF THE MADHYA PRADESH SOCIETIES
                          REGISTRIKARAN ADHINIYAM 1973, HAVING ITS
                          OFFICE AT HOUSE NO.108, FRONT DASHMESH
                          DHARMKANTA, CHANAKYAPURI, BESIDE POST OFFICE,
                          REWA ROAD, TAHSIL RATHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT
                          SATNA (M.P.), THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, JITENDRA
                          KUSHAWAHA, S/O SHRI RAM NIWAS KUSHWAHA, AGE
                          30 OCCUPATION SERVICE, R/O 278 WARD NO. 13,
                          GOBRA KALAN, SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
                                VALLABH     BHAWAN,   BHOPAL    (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    NATIONAL   HEALTH    MISSION,   MADHYA
                                PRADESH, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, 8,
                                ARERA HILLS, JAIL ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THROUGH
                                DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
                                SERVICES, MADHYA PRADESH, 6TH FLOOR,
                                SATPURA   BHAWAN,    BHOPAL   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI ANSHUMAN SWAMY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1
                          AND 3/STATE AND SHRI YUVRAJ SINGH BAIS - ADVOCATE FOR
                          RESPONDENT NO.2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:00:38 PM
                                                               2
                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dinendra Kumar Tripathi and others Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Appeal No.847 of 2022, decided on 02.08.2022). It has been observed therein as under: -

"The initial appointment of the petitioner was in case of emergency and was contractual in nature. Covid-19 Pandemic continued for almost two years and looking to the requirement of work of the petitioners their contractual appointment was extended from time to time. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was only contractual in nature as a emergency service. Now the effect of Covid- 19 Pandemic scenario is substantially reduced, therefore, no budget allotment was made by the Government for the services. As their services are no more required in the Department, the impugned order was passed.

The law with respect to contractual appointment is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad reported in (2018) 11 JT 540 wherein it is held that that a contractual employee is having no right for continuation of service and cannot even ask for extension of contract period. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is apparently clear that contractual appointee does not have a right to a s k for continuation in service. The appellants are not able to distinguish the judgment passed in the case of Ashta Dubey (supra) which was subsequently followed in a bunch of petitions main petition being Writ Petition No.11488 of 2022 (Dr. Dheeraj Rathore and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 28.06.2022. The case is identical to the aforesaid case of Dr. Dheeraj Rathore (supra). No right accrues to the appellants to ask for continuation of services.

In view of the settled legal proposition of law, no illegality appears to be committed by the learned Writ Court.

The writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/24/2023 3:00:38 PM

2. In this context, the respondent No.2 have also placed on record the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1084 of 2022 and the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11994 of 2022, dated 29.06.2022 (Dr. Bhupendra Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others) and other connected matters and order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.11096 of 2022 (Ashta Dubey Vs. The State of M.P. and others).

3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the said propositions.

4. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed in the case of Dr. Dinendra Kumar Tripathi (supra).

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE taj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/24/2023 3:00:38 PM

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter