Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 305 (JHR)

Triveni Ram v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-07

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1575 dated 23.9.2000 whereby and whereunder the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad reverted the petitioner from the post of Dresser to the lower class IV post of Ward Attendant. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the order of reversion has been issued on wrong presumption and after about 20 years of his promotion. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Kitchen Servant in Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad by the then S.E.M.O. & Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad by Memo No. 302 dated 13.2.1972. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 1702 dated 29.7.1978 the Superintendent. Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad transferred the petitioner and asked to function as Medical Ward Attendant and another Shri Narayan Ram who was Medical Ward Attendant, was asked to function in the Kitchen in place of petitioner. While working as Medical Ward Attendant, he also performed the duty of dresser and the petitioner obtained certificate to that extent from the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad on 1.5.1979. Thereafter the petitioner was given promotion to the post of dresser vide Memo No. 1400 dated 29.9.1980 Issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Dhanbad and continued against the post for about 20 years. 4. After 20 years, the Superintendent. Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad wanted to reopen the question of legality and propriety of promotion by giving a show cause notice vide Memo No. 1221, dated 29.7.2000 and on receipt of reply, reverted the petitioner vide order dated 23.9.2000. 5. In spite of time granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 6. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner having been appointed as Kitchen servant, could not have given the duty of dresser. The so-called certificate of working as dresser was given by the then Medical Officer a few days prior to retirement and it does not bear any memo number. Such record is also not available in the office. In the aforesaid background, the promotion of petitioner having found illegal, the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Uhanbad issued the impugned order dated 23.9.2000. 7. From the Memo No. 1702 dated 29.7.1978, it is evident that the petitioner was transferred as Medical Ward Attendant and in his place one Sri Narayan Ram was transferred as Kitchen Servant. In the aforesaid background, the promotion of petitioner having found illegal, the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Uhanbad issued the impugned order dated 23.9.2000. 7. From the Memo No. 1702 dated 29.7.1978, it is evident that the petitioner was transferred as Medical Ward Attendant and in his place one Sri Narayan Ram was transferred as Kitchen Servant. The dresser certificate which is stated to be given by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dhanbad on 1.5.1979 is not a formal certificate but seems to be a certificate of higher authority. If such certificate is granted by the higher authority, it is not necessary that a copy of the same should be kept on record and it is given a memo number with date. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as dresser 20 years back and performed duty of dresser. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was inefficient or was unable to perform duty of dresser. In the aforesaid background, the respondents should not have reopened the issue relating to legality and propriety of promotion after 20 years on the ground that a certificate was issued without memo number and the petitioner was initially appointed as Kitchen Servant. 9. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.9.2000 issued by the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad being illegal, is set aside. As the petitioner was continuing as dresser, he will be entitled for salary of the intervening period as he was forced to work against the lower post. 10. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations/directions.