Dr. Dinanath Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2834 of 2015 • Dr. Rajendra Binkar S/o Shri P.R. Binkar Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Post Graduate Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. National Rural Health Mission Chhattisgarh Through The Mission Director, L.I.C. Building, Jeevan Beema Raod, Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer District Hospital Gariyanand, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

4. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Gariyanand, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

5. Dr. J.L. Uike Presently Working As Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hospital Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattsigarh ---- Respondent And WPS No. 3248 Of 2015 • Dr. Dinanath Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years Presently Posted As Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs

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

2. Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Hospital Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

3. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents 2 & 5 in WPS 2834/15 : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 17/09/2015

1. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 5 in WPS No.2834/2015 would submit that the benefit of special incentive CRMC for the relevant period has been paid to the petitioner, therefore, WPS No.2834/2015 has been rendered infructuous.

2. In view of the above, the said Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that if, according to the petitioner, any part of the relief is still surviving, he may prefer a representation before appropriate respondents within one month, which shall be decided within 3 months thereafter.

3. The respondents have not filed any reply in WPS No.3248/2015, however, claim being similar in both the writ petitions and it is the stand of respondents 2 & 5 in WPS No.2834/2015 that payment has already

been made to the said petitioner, the present writ petition i.e. WPS No.3248/2015 is also disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner submits a representation within one month, the competent authority shall consider and decide his representation within a further period of 3 months.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve