Direction to decide service extension for contractual medical staff engaged during pandemic exigencies.

The petitioners were engaged as Medical Lab Technicians on a contractual basis at the Late Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Government Medical College, Raigarh, starting May 9, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Their contracts were extended periodically until June 2025, after which their services were terminated and they were not permitted to resume duties.

On June 6, 2025, the Dean of the Medical College (Respondent No. 5) wrote to the Director of Medical Education (Respondent No. 4) recommending an extension of the petitioners' services, stating that the workload for Lab Technicians and Attendants still existed.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to allow them to perform their duties and to consider their candidature for regularization.

The State contended that the petitioners were hired on an emergent basis for COVID-19 and that the institution currently only employs permanent staff.

1. Whether the Respondent authorities are required to take a formal decision on the pending recommendation for the extension of the petitioners' contractual services.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to continue in their positions or be considered for regularization based on their service during the pandemic.

The Court applied the principle of administrative fairness and the requirement for authorities to exercise discretion regarding personnel extensions when a formal recommendation is pending from a departmental head.

While no specific statutory provision was cited, the Court relied on the principle of equitable consideration for services rendered during extraordinary circumstances, noting that the petitioners discharged their duties "under the threat of life" during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court observed that the petitioners were front-line workers during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential services when there was a significant risk to life.

It further noted that the Dean’s letter dated June 6, 2025, served as empirical evidence that the requirement for Lab Technicians and Data Entry Operators persists at the institution.

The Court reasoned that since the Respondent No. 4 had not yet acted upon the Dean's recommendation for service extension, it was premature to adjudicate on the finality of the termination.

By connecting the ongoing need for staff (as identified by the Dean) with the petitioners’ prior service record, the Court determined that the Respondent No. 3 must pass a reasoned order on the matter of extension rather than leaving the recommendation in abeyance.

Instead, the Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Medical Education) to take a formal decision on the Dean's letter dated June 6, 2025, concerning the extension of the petitioners' services.

The Court held that this decision must be made "in accordance with law" while specifically keeping in mind the services rendered by the petitioners during the difficult period of the pandemic.

The Respondent was ordered to complete this consideration within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.