Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 968 (JHR)

Girish Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-09-15

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in both writ petitions have challenged the order dated 23.08.1998 issued by Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, wherein their services were terminated. 3. According to them, they had been engaged as daily rated employees under the establishment of Deputy Director Tuberculosis, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. They were issued appointment letter under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka in the year 1989, 1993 and 1995 in their individual cases as have been annexed as Annexure-1 series in both writ petitions. They have worked thereafter and some time later, show cause was issued to them to appear with all their certificates in relation to their appointment failing which their appointment would be cancelled. They submitted their show cause to the concerned respondent authorities of the erstwhile State of Bihar. However, thereafter vide impugned letter dated 23.08.1998 without giving any notice and reason, the respondent no. 3, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna has terminated their services. 4. According to the petitioners, they have continuously represented thereafter for their absorption in regular service, but no decision was taken. It is submitted that other similarly situated persons, who were also terminated, had moved before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and other analogous writ petitions, in which the order of termination was quashed by the Patna High Court on 06.10.2009 and the Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 1413 of 2010 preferred by the State was also dismissed with a direction to reinstate the said persons. Reference has been made to other cases of other similarly situated persons, who had preferred the writ petitions before this Court in W.P. (S) No 628 of 2010, W. P. (S) No. 4275 of 2010, W.P.(S) No. 5629 of 2010, which have been successively disposed of sometime in the year 2010 and 2011, the judgments are annexed as Annexure-8 series. According to the petitioners, they have made further representation thereafter, but the respondents have sat over the matter, therefore, they have come before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the appointment of such persons including the petitioners were terminated by the impugned order passed in 1998 as they were made on the basis of forged and fabricated appointment letters issued by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka. They were given opportunity to show cause. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the appointment of such persons including the petitioners were terminated by the impugned order passed in 1998 as they were made on the basis of forged and fabricated appointment letters issued by the then Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka. They were given opportunity to show cause. The respondents have further stated that pursuant to the direction passed in cases of certain persons like the Premchandra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 628 of 2010, the respondents have considered the representation of the said petitioners and vide Memo No. 218 of 10.09.2011, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand had rejected the same, which is Annexure-A to their counter affidavit. Similar representations in respect of other persons such as Kalyan Tiwari and Others were made pursuant to the observation made in W.P. (S) No. 5629 of 2010, which have also been rejected by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand through Memo no. 2613 (II) dated 01.10.2011. Therefore, according to the respondents the claim of the petitioners is wholly untenable in law. The writ petitions have been filed after a considerable delay without any explanation. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the judgment passed in similar matters preferred by certain persons namely Shambhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 3661 of 2013 vide judgment dated 06.05.2014. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in similar circumstances the challenge to the order of termination passed in 1998 by the said persons have also been rejected by this Court by the said judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. It appears that the claim of the petitioners is suffering from unexplained gross delay and laches. At the same time in respect of certain other persons, after directions passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in one or another cases, representation for reinstatement have been rejected by the reasoned order, which are enclosed to the counter affidavit of the respondents as well. In this context, the judgment passed in the case of Shambhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. In this context, the judgment passed in the case of Shambhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 3661 of 2013 vide judgment dated 06.05.2014 appears to be identical to the facts of the present case. The said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners who are 27 in number have sought quashing of an order dated 31st August, 1998, Annexure-3, issued by Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, whereby, according to them, their services were terminated. The appointment letter of the years 1989, 1993 and 1995 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, have been annexed asAnnexure-1 to the writ petition in support of their contention that they were appointed on respective Class-III post of Health Worker in Primary Health Centres in the district of Dumka on daily wages and were absorbed on the said post by the said letter. The petitioners have contended that Annexure-3, which is impugned though does not mention their names, but the petitioners have also been terminated under the same order as allegedly such appointments were made through forged and fabricated appointment letters. The said findings are also indicated in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also stated that some of the affected persons had been pursuing their cases before the Patna High Court in the writ petition and in Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the same by the State of Bihar, the judgments of which are annexed as Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is submitted on the strength of the said judgments that the termination order of the said petitioners were set aside and they were directed to be reinstated. Therefore, the petitioners also deserve to be reinstated in service. According to the petitioners, some of the other person had also approached this Court in other writ petition such as W.P.(S)No. 7263 of 2012 in which a direction was given to the respondents to dispose of the representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Therefore, the petitioners also deserve to be reinstated in service. According to the petitioners, some of the other person had also approached this Court in other writ petition such as W.P.(S)No. 7263 of 2012 in which a direction was given to the respondents to dispose of the representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that after passing of the judgment in some of the other cases of similarly situated employees who were appointed in the Tuberculosis Department by one Dr.A.A. Mallikin wholly, arbitrary, illegal and perverse manner, the matter was considered by the Respondent-State and representation of such persons have been rejected by Annexure-B dated 1st October, 2011 passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand. It has been further stated that the opinion of the learned Advocate General was also taken as to whether the said persons could be permitted to join in the successor State of Jharkhand in view of the judgments passed by the Patna High Court in such cases in 2009. They have made reference to the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand that the State of Jharkhand is not bound to accept the joining of the persons in compliance of the order passed by the Patna High Court. Such directions have also been issued by the Health Department to all the concerned Civil Surgeons within the State of Jharkhand. Reference has also been made to similar illegal appointments made in the Leprosy Department which were terminated and thereafter on consideration of the representation of such persons, their claims had also been rejected. The respondents have therefore taken a plea that the appointees of Dr. A.A Mallik, the then Deputy Director of Tuberculosis have been examined and such illegal appointees have been terminated during the existence of erstwhile State of Bihar taking into account all these facts. Therefore the claim of such similarly situated persons was also rejected by Annexure-Bas above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. Therefore the claim of such similarly situated persons was also rejected by Annexure-Bas above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the first place, it is apparent that the petitioners allege to have been terminated in the year 1998 after issuance of the order dated 31st August, 1998 itself by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services Bihar on the grounds that the appointments made at the relevant point of time in the Tuberculosis Department were found to be forged and fabricated. In spite of that the petitioners have moved before this Court after 15 years in the present writ application. A reference has been made to one or other judgments passed by the Patna High Court. Though reference has been made to the order passed by this Court earlier in respect of such employees whose services were terminated in similar manner, but perusal of one such order at Annexure-7 indicates that the respondents were only directed to take a decision in accordance with law. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents as reflected hereinabove, indicates that these appointments were made sometime in 1980s and earlier 1990s by one doctor A.A. Mallik who was the then Deputy Director, Tuberculosis in an illegal and irregular manner and the services of such illegal appointees were also terminated by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The respondents also appeared to have considered the cases of similarly situated employees upon direction passed in one or other case upon them to dispose of their representation. Upon consideration of such representations pursuant to the direction passed in several cases such as W.P.(S) No. 5629 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2336 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2396 of 2010; W.P.(S) No. 2589 of 2011 and W.P.(S) No. 2918 of 2011, the claim for reinstatement of such persons have been rejected by a reasoned order which is enclosed as Annexure-B dated 1st October, 2011 passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand. Therefore examining the claim of the petitioners from all aspect not only the writ petition is suffering from gross delay and latches as the petitioners have never agitated their cause of action rather sat over the matter till 2013, at the same time the case of similarly situated persons were considered by the respondent authorities of the State of Jharkhand and have been rejected, as aforesaid. Therefore, no grounds for interference in the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any distinguishing feature in these cases to that of the case of Shambhu Sharma &Ors.(Supra). Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.