Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1462 (JHR)

Dilip Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-24

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though the prayer made in the writ petition is couched in a different language but essentially the petitioner is seeking annulment of the order of termination dated 30th May,1992 and reinstatement in the light of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 stating that his case is similar to that of the said petitioner. Petitioner has also referred to one or the other directions passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2670 of 2010 and W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 to seek reinstatement and regularization in service. Instances have also been given of judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 5629 of 2010. 3. The factual matrix of the case as disclosed from the pleadings reveals that petitioner is also one of the beneficiaries of appointments made in the year 1989 and in 1980's in an irregular and illegal manner which were terminated by the order dated 30th May, 1992, Annexure-2 to the present writ petition issued by the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar. 4. The present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief have been preferred after 23 years of the order of termination. The questions relating to termination and reinstatement in respect of persons whose services were also terminated in similar manner earlier by the State of Bihar were considered by this Court in the case of Girish Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand i.e. WP(S) No.4806/2013 relied upon by the counsel for the State. Reliance on the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and other analogous were also placed in the said case on behalf of the said petitioners. 5. Taking into account the rival submission made and the similar factual matrix of the said case, this Court in the case of Girish Kumar -vs.- State of Jharkhand in W. P. (S) No. 4806 of 2013 and analogous case vide judgment dated 15.09.2014 did not find any reasons to interfere in the writ petition. For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in the case of Girish Kumar (Supra) is quoted hereinbelow: “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. For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in the case of Girish Kumar (Supra) is quoted hereinbelow: “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 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 Surgeoncum- Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, have been annexed as Annexure-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. 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. 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. Mallik in 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-B, as 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-B, as 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.” 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.” 6. It transpires that the impugned order of termination has been passed in 1992 after giving opportunity to each of the persons in terms of certain directions passed by the Patna High Court earlier on the question relating to their appointment and the claim for being taken in regular establishment. After such long lapse of time and also for the reasons contained in the judgment passed in the case of Girish Kumar (Supra), the present writ petition also does not require any inference and there are no other distinguishing features in the case. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.