Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 18]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Seema vs State Of Chhattisgarh 10 Wps/4251/2018 ... on 2 July, 2018

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                                                                               NAFR
                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                 WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4253 OF 2018
           Smt. Seema, D/o Shri Dwarika Prasad, aged about 28 years, working as Lab
           Technician, Community Health Centre, Kumhari, Block- Dhamdha, District
           Durg (C.G.)                                                ... Petitioner
                                           versus
           1.     State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Health and
           Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
           (C.G.)
           2.     Mission Director, National Health Mission, Indravati Bhawan,
           Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
           3.     Chief Medical & Health Officer, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
           4.     Block Medical Officer, Block Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 02/07/2018

1. The issue involved in the present case is the denial of maternity benefits to the Petitioner who is working as Lab Technician at Community Health Centre, Kumhari, Block Dhamdha, District Durg.

2. The said issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Devshree bandhe Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. & others in W.P.(S) No. 101 of 2017. The said judgment has also been reiterated in W.P.(S) No. 3365 of 2017 decided on 26.07.2017 in the case of Dr. Vijay Laxmin Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others.

3. Learned State Counsel fairly admits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is in fact covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court.

4. In the light of the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court, the present writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly allowed, with a direction to the Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner is provided with all maternity benefits at par with the Government employees.

5. The writ petition stands accordingly finally disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                                                    (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                               Judge