1. Employees challenge an administrative order directing the performance of additional vaccination duties at distant health centers, citing shortage of staff and lack of competence in the issuing authority. (Para 02 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J
Ganga Patidar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 43836 of 2026 | CNR No.: MPHC020421252026
Important Points
The court directed the competent authority to decide a pending representation regarding the assignment of additional duties within a specified timeframe, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Subject
Service Law - Administrative Action
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Service Matters - Direction to decide representation - Where a representation is pending before the competent authority regarding the legality of an order assigning additional duties, the court may dispose of the petition by directing the authority to decide the representation within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petition challenging the assignment of additional vaccination duties should be decided on merits or by directing the disposal of a pending representation.
Issues: Whether the petition challenging the assignment of additional vaccination duties should be decided on merits or by directing the disposal of a pending representation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Verma
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Verma
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contest the legality of the order due to lack of competence and contrary departmental instructions, while the State maintains the work is an essential public health service. (Para 03 , 04 , 05 )
3. The court observed that a representation regarding the grievance is already pending before the competent departmental authority and requires consideration in light of existing departmental instructions. (Para 06 )
4. Where an employee has an active departmental representation challenging administrative instructions, the court may direct the relevant authority to decide the matter within a specified timeline. (Para 06 )
5. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the pending representation within four weeks, considering relevant departmental instructions. (Para 06 )
6. Can a court direct an administrative authority to resolve a pending representation regarding the assignment of additional duties?
Yes, if an employee has already submitted a detailed representation challenging the instructions, the court may dispose of the petition by directing the competent authority to decide that representation within a set time frame, while considering relevant departmental guidelines. (Para 06 )
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-
02. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are appointed on the post of ANM in different places in district Neemuch. According to the norms, there should be one ANM for a population of 10,000, however, this ratio has not been followed, despite there being shortage of ANM. The respondent no.4 has issued letter dated 30.09.2026 directing the petitioners to perform additional duties in the Sub health centers which are mentioned in the said letter. They are directed to undertake vaccination duties at distant health centers far away from their respective head quarters.
03. Petitioners have come with a case that the respondent no.4 is not the competent authority, thus the impugned order passed by the said authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been pointed out that the letter dated 30.09.2026 is contrary to the instructions given earlier by Mission Director vide his letter dated 14.02.2026. The petitioners have submitted that the Community Health Officer should be directed to perform the duties regarding vaccination, however, as they refused to do so, now the duties have been assigned to the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved have submitted a detailed representation to the respondent no.2/Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Neemuch against the instructions contained in the letter dated 13.09.2026.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representations of the petitioners is pending consideration before respondent no.2 and till date no order has been passed. He thus submits that considering the instructions issued in the aforesaid letters, the representation of the petitioners be decided.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that looking to the fact that the petitioners have been assigned work of immunization, no interference is warranted in the matter, considering that the work is part of the essential health service and is urgently required to be performed by all concerned persons.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
06. Looking to the fact that the petitioners have already submitted a detailed representation before the respondent no.2, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner by taking into consideration the letter dated 14.02.2026 as well as 21.09.2026 issued by Mission Director as well as District Immunization Officer, District Dewas within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of , however, without expressing anything on the merits of the case.
