SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DR. MAHAVIR SINGH JOWHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/8000/2022



##PAGE1##

1

NIRMALA

RAO

2026:CGHC:21463

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 8000 of 2022

1 - Dr. Mahavir Singh Jowhary, S/o Dr. S N Jowhary, Aged About 48 Years R/o

Aminpara, Puranibasti, Police Station, Puranibasti, Raipur, District - Raipur

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Directorate, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through -

Director, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Medical Officer And Medical Officer, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh

5 - Joint Director, Directorate, Health Services, Raipur, District - Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

6 - Chief Medical Officer And Medical Officer, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner/s : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate.

For Respondents/ State : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Judgment On Board

##PAGE2##

2

07.05.2026

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

“I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set aside the orders dated

03.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) and order dated

29.07.2021 (Annexure P/2) as illegal.

II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to

grant place of posting to the petitioner, in light

of his qualifications.

III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to

treat the period since 19.03.2016 as period on

duty.

IV. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to

grant the petitioner arrears of pay and grant

him timely promotions.

V. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court

deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may

also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer (M.S.

Surgery) in the year 2006 and subsequently, acquired the degree

of DNB (Neuro Surgery) in the year 2014. She would submit that

in the year 2015, the petitioner was posted as a Medical Officer at

Community Health Centre, Abhanpur. Thereafter, his services

were transferred from Abhanpur to District Hospital, Durg, Trauma

Centre vide order order 30.10.2015. It is contended that as no

relieving order was issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner

##PAGE3##

3

could not join his duties at the transferred place pursuant to the

order of transfer, therefore, the petitioner approached respondent

No.1 and vide letter dated 14.3.2016, the Civil Surgeon, Durg was

directed to permit the petitioner to join his services. She would

argue that the petitioner submitted his joining application before

respondent No.4 on 19.3.2016 but he was asked to submit the

same alongwith a relieving order. She would submit that the

petitioner wandered from pillar to post, but no heed was paid to

his grievance, and ultimately, an order has been passed by

respondent No.1 on 29.7.2021, whereby the services of the

petitioner came to an end pursuant to provisions of Rule 11 of the

Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Leave

Rules, 2010’). It was stated that the petitioner had remained

absent from service. She would submit that the petitioner has

placed sufficient documents on record to demonstrate that there

was no mistake on his part. The petitioner repeatedly approached

the respondent authorities but respondent No.3 failed to issue a

relieving order, therefore, he was not permitted to join his duties at

the transferred place. It is also submitted that respondent No.1

also issued directions to respondents No.3 & 4, but no heed was

paid and subsequently, respondent No.1 itself passed the

impugned order whereas, the authority concerned was aware of

all the facts and circumstances of the case. She would pray to

allow this petition.

##PAGE4##

4

3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top