High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3313/2018disposed off

Dr. Arvind Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-09-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3313 of 2018 Dr. Arvind Sharma S/o Shri Dayaram Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House Of Manish Nishad, Near Civil Court, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), Permanent R/o House Of Pawan Agrawal, Bhawani Nagar, Gali No. 1, Near Sabras Hotel, Basantpur Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Under Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Director, Ayurved, Yog Evam Prakratik Chikitsa, Yunani Siddha And Homeopathy (AYUSH), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

5. District Ayurved Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 16.09.2020

1. The challenge in the present writ petition was to Annexure P-1 dated

06.04.2018 whereby the petitioner was placed under compulsory retirement.

2. Pending the writ petition before this Court, the respondents have now reconsidered their decision vide order dated 17.01.2019 and the order dated 06.04.2018 under challenge in the present writ petition has been cancelled and the petitioner has thereafter been taken back in service.

3. In view of the order dated 17.01.2019 and the effect of the same, the present writ petition has become inconsequential and accordingly stands disposed of.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits that the treatment of the intervening period during which the petitioner was out of service has not been decided by the Department.

5. The said issue would be a subsequent cause of action for which the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Department. In case the respondents do not satisfactorily redress the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to him under law.

6. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai