Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 758 (MP)

Jitendra Pratap Singh Ghosh v. Union of India

2019-11-04

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, SANJAY YADAV

body2019
ORDER Yadav, J.--1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against order dated 25.7.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 8531/2017. 2. The writ petition was for a quashment of order dated 31.5.2017 and order dated 1.6.2017. 3. That, by communication dated 31.5.2017, the decision taken by the Commissioner, Directorate of Health Services, State of Madhya Pradesh, was circulated to the Chief Medical and Health Officer of various districts to not to continue the services of contractual Multi-purpose Health Worker (PHW) beyond 30.6.2017 and to issue one month's notice to that effect. Whereas, the order dated 1.6.2017 is the order of termination whereby contractual appointment of the petitioners was brought to an end. 4. The communication/orders were questioned on the averments that after their appointment on contract basis which though was for a stipulated term, their services were continued till 3.1.2011 when the order was passed for terminating their services which being assailed in Writ Petition No. 15077/2014 wherein, by order dated 10.10.2014, status quo was directed. Thereafter, it was urged that the contract period was extended but not beyond June, 2017. It was urged that having worked for almost a decade, the petitioners were ought to have been regularized. 5. Respondents while contradicting the contention of the petitioner as regard to regularization, urged that in the year 2008 in wake of National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme partly funded by the Central Government, 1000 Multipurpose Health Workers (MPWs) were proposed to be engaged on contractual basis with a clear stipulation in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the State Government and the Central Government that the services of the contractual workers appointed under said programme shall come to an end on 1.4.2012. It was urged that the programme was extended by the Central Government till 31.3.2014, 773 MPWs including the petitioners were retained. Thereafter, the programme was extended for further two years till 30.9.2016 which led to continuation of contractual appointment till then. It was urged that the contract appointment was not to be continued after 30.9.2016; however, inadvertently, the appointment continued till 31.3.2017. Thereafter, the programme was extended for further two years till 30.9.2016 which led to continuation of contractual appointment till then. It was urged that the contract appointment was not to be continued after 30.9.2016; however, inadvertently, the appointment continued till 31.3.2017. It was further contended that since the State has the regular cadre of MPWs of 4260 sanctioned post and except 253 posts, the rest were occupied and that in the year 2012, the Central Government/National Health Mission (NHM) made appointment of one Accredited Social health Activist (ASHA) in each village/population of 1000 in the State whose job was to identify and treat the malaria effected persons. It was urged that as on date, 70,000 ASHAs were appointed in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. It was further contended that in the year 2014, the things were further improved by establishing one Gram Arogya Kendra (GAK) in each village which were ASHA centres catering the facilities and medicines by diagnosis and treatment of malaria related diseases. These facts and the fact that the petitioners who were the contractual employees appointed for a particular programme which was later on taken care of through regular cadre and ASHA workers, led the learned Single Judge decline the relief sought by the petitioners. 6. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioners, the appellants herein that, learned Single Judge glossed over the fact that having worked for over nine years, a right accrued in favour of respective petitioners. However, the fact remains that the petitioners were engaged as contractual employee for a particular programme. As there was no further need for their services, it was within the competence of the State Government not to extend the further period of contractual appointment. Learned Single Judge was thus within its jurisdiction in non-suiting the petitioners. 7. In the case of Baddula Lakshmiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52 , the Supreme Court ruled, that in an intra-Court appeal the appellate Court is a Court of Correction which corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Judge. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. 8. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. 8. In view whereof, we do not perceive any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge warranting any interference in this intra-Court appeal. 9. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.