Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 713 (JHR)

Mahendra Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent- State is present. 2. Petitioners herein are 23 in numbers who are seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 23.8.1998 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar where under their services were terminated claiming that they are similarly situated persons to those petitioners whose cases were decided by the Patna High Court vide judgment dated 6.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases. Therefore, they are seeking reinstatement in service. 3. Petitioners claimed to have been engaged as daily rated employees under the establishment of Deputy Director, Tuberculosis, Health, Bihar, Patna. According to them pursuant to the letter no. 60(3) dated 6.10.1984 of the Joint Secretary, Health Services, Government of Bihar and letter no. 808 dated 4.4.1987 issued by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Office of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Dumka issued letter of appointment of the petitioners as contained in letters enclosed to Annexure-1 series of different years such as 5.6.1989, 10.5.1993 and 9.6.1995. They started working to the satisfaction of the superior but were asked to show cause on 10.9.1996 to appear with all certificates vide Annexure-2.. Despite giving their respective replies and stating that they have been absorbed in respective post in different centers, the impugned order dated 23.8.1998 has been issued terminating their service, Annexure-4. These petitioners have claimed that they were absorbed in regular service and are continuously representing before the respondents but no decision has been taken thereafter. Petitioners have also relied upon judgment passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 6575 of 2009 and other analogous cases as also the order passed in L.P.A. No. 1413 of 2010 preferred against the said judgment which was also dismissed with a direction to reinstate such persons. Therefore, they have sought reinstatement of their services upon quashing the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 23.8.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the very issue relating to termination of services of such persons by the same common order dated 23.8.1998 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar was squarely under consideration by this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 4806 of 2013 and W.P.S. No. 4807 of 2013 preferred by other petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the very issue relating to termination of services of such persons by the same common order dated 23.8.1998 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar was squarely under consideration by this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 4806 of 2013 and W.P.S. No. 4807 of 2013 preferred by other petitioners. This Court after taking into account all the material facts and the grounds raised by the present petitioners as also the judgment passed by this Court in other similar case in the case of Shambhu Sharma & others Vrs. the State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.S. No. 3661 of 2013, Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 112, vide judgment dated 6.5.2014 has been pleaded to dismiss the writ petitions as there were no distinguishable features found in the said cases. 5. Having taken note of the aforesaid material facts as brought on record, stand of the learned counsel for the respondents and the judgment passed in identical matters where same order of termination dated 23.8.1998 issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Bihar was under challange, this Court finds that there are no distinguishable features in the present case either to entertain the prayer of the present petitioners. The judgment dated 15.9.2014 in the case of Girish Kumar & others passed in W.P.S. No. 4806 of 2013, Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 230 and W.P.S. No. 4807 of 2013, Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 230 has dealt with the contention of the petitioners in detail and the relevant extracts thereof are being quoted here under as well:- “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, Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 112 vide judgment dated 06.05.2014 appears to be identical to the facts of the present case. 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, Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 112 vide judgment dated 06.05.2014 appears to be identical to the facts of the present case. The said judgment is quoted here-in-below:- “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 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. 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. 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 Sucessor 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. 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. 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. In these circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.