PETITIONER: ^^' .. ^f^/^^ ••'•a:^^]/^-^ iS-sias-t- -• C^ I, / a~2r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN ( S ) No. ^^2/Qf 2QQ9 / ....'•%^^!^--" ^y^- Ku. Reena Ekka. D/o Victer Ekka , aged about 30 years, Ex. Fernale MzLltipurpose Health Worker,Sub Health Centre Chulikar, Conim.unity Health Centa-e, Vijaynagar (at the time of termination of service working at Sub Health Centra Barbhona, District Raigarh (CG),R/o Bazar Para, Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa (CG). Versus /^l. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, FamUy Welfare aad Health Departinent, Mantralay at D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipiu- (CG). 2. The Direetor, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3. The Colleetor, Raigarh (CG). 4. Tlie Chief Medieal and Health Of&cer, Raigarh (CG). ' RIT EETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION 0;F INDIA RESPONDENTS: '^' HIGH COURT OF CHHAtTISGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6872 of 2009 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Ku. Reena Ekka State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Shailendra Dubey counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj GAforthe respondent/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (22.11.2010) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-8) by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated by respondent No.4. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner who belonged to scheduled tribe category was appointed as Female Multipurpose Health Worker by respondent No.4 vide order dated 22.8.2003 (Annexure P-7) and grievance of the petitioner is that after putting in five years of service, her services have been terminated without affording proper opportunity to her. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that number of identical matters have been decided by this Court in W.P. (S) 6713/2009 (Roshan Prasad Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others and the case of the petitioner is exactlythe same to thatofW.P. (S) 6793/2009 (Ku. Chitrani Raj V. State of Chhattisgarh and others. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in all the writ petitions while allowing the same this Court has set aside the order of termination reserving liberty to the State Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law after complying with basic principles of natural justice. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State does not dispute the factual position ofthe case that in similarly placed writ petitions particularly in W.P. (S) 6793/2009 this Court has quashed the order of termination granting. liberty to the State Government. i^'f^te,), -z, 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is also allowed in terms ofthe order passed in W.P. (S) 6793/2009 and 6713/2009. Order impugned dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent No.4 is set aside. Respondents are directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner in service without any back wages. Respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to explain the case after complying with the basic principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. Petition thus succeeds. Sdi- Pritinker Diwaker Judge